[PATCH v3 1/2] systemtap/tapsets.cxx: Adjusted for multiple static functions

[Frank Ch. Eigler]

mjw wrote:

> [...]
>>    // TODO: Use a multimap in case there are multiple static
>>    // functions with the same name?
>>    map_by_addr.insert(make_pair(addr, fi));
>
> But map_by_addr is already a multimap as introduced in commit 1c6b77
> PR10327: resolve symbol aliases to dwarf functions by Josh. [...]
> Since map_by_addr is using a multimap I was wondering if map_by_name
> should also be a multimap instead of a map to a list? Do you happen to
> know the advantages/disadvantages of the two datastructures?

Indeed, the new structure should be a multimap too.  That means it'd
be apprx. a binary tree of (key,value) pairs (with duplication
allowed.  It would be a bit more canonical, and has advantages in
cases where the list needs to be modified or traversed without
copying.


>> +          list<func_info*> *fis = new list<func_info*>;
>> +          fis = sym_table->lookup_symbol(function_str_val);
>> [...]
> Don't we need to delete the fis somewhere?

lookup_symbol should just return the list by value and let C++ handle
the memory management.  (The objects pointed to by the embedded
func_info* pointers are a separate matter.)

- FChE