From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [170.10.133.124]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8AAC03858CDA for ; Tue, 10 Jan 2023 10:07:50 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.2 sourceware.org 8AAC03858CDA Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=redhat.com DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1673345269; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=TFnlOSYBFuWCOXfpXnispDZxD9bs5NxrVLE3BFv3Zsk=; b=ClXkvxaf3bAahSFIqosLMlxfNLaEDy6nNHVT1Yju7h69+DoDkZiuzdA+hS2Vb0aiLxlBVT /9YY1rJkc8Y6VPTn6ynEmF4gktY3gcdyL4VXUXf/5wm5O24dw4Uo1wNZfstfkZ9zhSFnoE JaGjnsjcJljzgcYWcfa2Uwbu5NO00Ig= Received: from mail-ua1-f72.google.com (mail-ua1-f72.google.com [209.85.222.72]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.3, cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id us-mta-658-YEO4FJVEO6iJ2yqDPkAcxQ-1; Tue, 10 Jan 2023 05:07:48 -0500 X-MC-Unique: YEO4FJVEO6iJ2yqDPkAcxQ-1 Received: by mail-ua1-f72.google.com with SMTP id l42-20020ab0166d000000b00445260e9ad6so5327715uae.13 for ; Tue, 10 Jan 2023 02:07:48 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=mime-version:message-id:date:references:in-reply-to:subject:cc:to :from:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=TFnlOSYBFuWCOXfpXnispDZxD9bs5NxrVLE3BFv3Zsk=; b=579xj3xx9rjcfiP1F7h9xYTC2OyV7TSbFx9Q9rok577sGvP4B9B07xhW8hGpSfNmoX l8RM3xKNDMmTseAFMKfISsOcYRKPtgSPUL4T/UwVu+SFPIkHs/BJzzwiJ2dsYOUl0DW0 s8DdS/zf/XPBYSDh70YDmhBzgU0eIEr4iHaXwBE4669t3E1yhvFsLfms+x4qviKOaVMZ SV3GCx4Sg/A9pHH6b9wFxuvVTGSESLPNtQqEcohWFeO9ynVhPs+fzG1NvsWGY/IEROIq z+GNLzTm3FUH4xmpAzXtIVGJQSM19qT7aPfMldZbll3CafryEIjxsfC6+pOPoLJTUgrv xiEg== X-Gm-Message-State: AFqh2koreKs7Lby5xaL/hDJAeMd31hcysN0SzqP0Qg3SH33DuXdX7bDd yNoJ7i2ZQ2JFGNZhflVSWKRSg7B2UOFoob9eOrpInxZ2E8VqiyyPS79Q4/nUiTiTbZpYF9SyWvw xMiu/CD/olgTM6LKKhTHc+g== X-Received: by 2002:a05:6102:7cb:b0:3d0:ca43:4001 with SMTP id y11-20020a05610207cb00b003d0ca434001mr337981vsg.20.1673345267978; Tue, 10 Jan 2023 02:07:47 -0800 (PST) X-Google-Smtp-Source: AMrXdXut5/EK7bzAzYUBSvY+DhLKi2GsZG68jjKWoNfwtyyHfzFRmMyYd4IFiMPsOmW5IYyoRmShGg== X-Received: by 2002:a05:6102:7cb:b0:3d0:ca43:4001 with SMTP id y11-20020a05610207cb00b003d0ca434001mr337973vsg.20.1673345267768; Tue, 10 Jan 2023 02:07:47 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (95.72.115.87.dyn.plus.net. [87.115.72.95]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id k2-20020a05620a414200b006faaf6dc55asm6985815qko.22.2023.01.10.02.07.46 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Tue, 10 Jan 2023 02:07:47 -0800 (PST) From: Andrew Burgess To: Tom Tromey , Tom Tromey Cc: Joel Brobecker , Tom Tromey via Gdb-patches Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] Don't erase empty indices in DWARF reader In-Reply-To: <877cxva7x8.fsf@tromey.com> References: <20221215190759.2494095-1-tromey@adacore.com> <20221215190759.2494095-3-tromey@adacore.com> <878rj3zbtv.fsf@redhat.com> <87tu1rl3rh.fsf@tromey.com> <87k01vac81.fsf@tromey.com> <877cxva7x8.fsf@tromey.com> Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2023 10:07:45 +0000 Message-ID: <87k01uhfda.fsf@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_NONE,TXREP autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on server2.sourceware.org List-Id: Tom Tromey writes: >>>>>> "Tom" == Tom Tromey writes: > > Tom> I think it may be best to just drop this patch and leave the current > Tom> code in place. It doesn't do anything, but on the other hand, this > Tom> seems to be non-obvious, so it may serve a useful assurance purpose. > > It occurred to me today that another approach might be to add a > self-test for this -- that is, use parallel-for-each on (say) a single > task but when multiple threads are available. Then, it could check that > there are no NULL responses. Hi Tom, Sorry I missed your original reply, and thanks for the extra info. If the code is dead then I don't see any point keeping it around. If you don't believe there's any point adding an assert in its place then I'm fine with that. I'm always pleased to see new selftests being added, so if you feel that's worth doing then +1 from me. But I don't think you should drop this patch if you are happy with it, no point in holding on to dead code. Thanks, Andrew