From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from simark.ca (simark.ca [158.69.221.121]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9C2293858D35 for ; Wed, 7 Oct 2020 18:36:38 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 sourceware.org 9C2293858D35 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=simark.ca Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=simark@simark.ca Received: from [172.16.0.95] (192-222-181-218.qc.cable.ebox.net [192.222.181.218]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by simark.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 42C471E58D; Wed, 7 Oct 2020 14:36:38 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] Use obstack in ada_encode_1 To: Tom Tromey Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <20201002202604.1517475-1-tromey@adacore.com> <20201002202604.1517475-3-tromey@adacore.com> <2d52a731-17e4-4a8f-0916-9a2203b0c94d@simark.ca> <87o8ldopdq.fsf@tromey.com> From: Simon Marchi Message-ID: <036868fd-e2c5-4a95-2034-468f7de525c6@simark.ca> Date: Wed, 7 Oct 2020 14:36:37 -0400 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.10.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <87o8ldopdq.fsf@tromey.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: tl Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.0 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, KAM_DMARC_STATUS, KAM_NUMSUBJECT, NICE_REPLY_A, SPF_HELO_PASS, SPF_PASS, TXREP autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on server2.sourceware.org X-BeenThere: gdb-patches@sourceware.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Gdb-patches mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 07 Oct 2020 18:36:39 -0000 On 2020-10-07 2:35 p.m., Tom Tromey wrote: > Yeah, actually it is probably a better API to simply return a new > string. I avoided this since I wasn't sure about why the function is > the way it is -- is it to avoid the difficulties of managing an > allocation in C, or is it to avoid extra allocations? But I looked at > the callers and I think it will be fine. I always wonder the same with these functions and I have no idea. Simon