This is the mail archive of the mailing list for the GDB project.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: [patch 0/4] varobj_list replacement [Re: [patch 4/8] Types GC [varobj_list to all_root_varobjs]]

>>>>> "Jan" == Jan Kratochvil <> writes:

Volodya> Can we just make varobj.c expose vector of varobjs?

Jan> In general iterators are preferred over direct variable access in
Jan> modern programming.

Yeah, but what about in gdb? ;)

Jan> Still I would prefer:
Jan> Iterator - so-called "safe" (keeping the next pointer) double link list:

This patch (assuming it was the 4/4 patch) seemed pretty clean to me.

I did not read all the patches.  I'm happy to do so and review them, but
I didn't want to overstep into Volodya's maintainership area.

Jan> Regression tested all the 4 patches on {x86_64,i686}-fedora-linux-gnu.

So, I have a few comments on this.

I understand from other mail that this patch is a prerequisite to the
type GC work.  However, I don't understand in what way it is needed.  I
probably missed something... could you either explain it or tell me
where to look?

Second, I did not see a response to any of these patches.  So, ping.

Third, I think it is strange to send four patches that do the same thing
in different ways.  I am certain that we can all communicate better than
this, and come to an agreement about direction beforehand.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]