Re: [RFA 4/9] Explicit locations v2 - Add address locations

[Keith Seitz <keiths at redhat dot com>]

On 06/08/2014 02:58 PM, Doug Evans wrote:

> I've given the series another read through.
> Not as detailed a read through as I want to, but that'll have to wait for a bit.

I really appreciate your efforts here. I owe you a beverage of your 
choice should we ever meet in person again!

> @@ -291,10 +290,8 @@ bpfinishpy_init (PyObject *self, PyObject *args,
> PyObject *kwargs)
>         struct event_location location;
>
>         /* Set a breakpoint on the return address.  */
> -      initialize_event_location (&location, LINESPEC_LOCATION);
> -      finish_pc = get_frame_pc (prev_frame);
> -      xsnprintf (small_buf, sizeof (small_buf), "*%s", hex_string (finish_pc));
> -      EVENT_LOCATION_LINESPEC (&location) = small_buf;
> +      initialize_event_location (&location, ADDRESS_LOCATION);
> +      EVENT_LOCATION_ADDRESS (&location) = get_frame_pc (prev_frame);
>         create_breakpoint (python_gdbarch,
>                            &location, NULL, thread, NULL,
>                            0
> I can think of two solutions.  Maybe there's another even better one.
>
> 1) Have a "placement new"-like constructor akin to the existing
> new_foo_location constructors we have that takes a pointer to the
> object to initialize.
> 2) Always use the existing new_foo_location constructors and free the
> object when done.

My purpose on this was efficiency. I haven't a clue how often a python 
script could call this, so I opted to handle memory allocations a little 
more tightly. I have no real objections to either solution, but I guess 
I would opt for #2 since that both exists and is already widely used.

Do you want me to submit an update to the series for this, or shall I 
wait for more feedback?

Keith