From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 6880 invoked by alias); 19 Aug 2010 20:32:45 -0000 Received: (qmail 6867 invoked by uid 22791); 19 Aug 2010 20:32:45 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,SPF_HELO_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Thu, 19 Aug 2010 20:32:41 +0000 Received: from int-mx08.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx08.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.21]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id o7JKWejl014250 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK) for ; Thu, 19 Aug 2010 16:32:40 -0400 Received: from ns3.rdu.redhat.com (ns3.rdu.redhat.com [10.11.255.199]) by int-mx08.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id o7JKWdDM014116; Thu, 19 Aug 2010 16:32:40 -0400 Received: from opsy.redhat.com (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.9.1]) by ns3.rdu.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id o7JKWdFj005627; Thu, 19 Aug 2010 16:32:39 -0400 Received: by opsy.redhat.com (Postfix, from userid 500) id F06AA378975; Thu, 19 Aug 2010 14:32:38 -0600 (MDT) From: Tom Tromey To: sami wagiaalla Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [RFC] Use custom hash function with bcache References: <4C6946E1.6000709@redhat.com> <4C6BF870.7010203@redhat.com> <4C6D5CC2.8060403@redhat.com> Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2010 20:32:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <4C6D5CC2.8060403@redhat.com> (sami wagiaalla's message of "Thu, 19 Aug 2010 12:33:06 -0400") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.2 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2010-08/txt/msg00359.txt.bz2 >>>>> "Sami" == sami wagiaalla writes: Sami> Although, you are right, there is no strict type checking. Are you Sami> suggesting we make psymbol_cache a new type ? Tom> Yeah; at least, if it isn't too big. Sami> Patch attached. Aside from some formatting nits, this looks good to me. Sami> +struct psymbol_bcache * Sami> +psymbol_bcache_init () (void) Sami> +{ Sami> + struct psymbol_bcache *bcache = XCALLOC (1, struct psymbol_bcache); Sami> + bcache->bcache = bcache_xmalloc (psymbol_hash, psymbol_compare); Sami> + return bcache; Wrong amount of indentation here. Also for a single object, use XNEW, not XCALLOC. Sami> +void Sami> +psymbol_bcache_free (struct psymbol_bcache *bcache) Sami> +{ Sami> + Sami> + if (bcache == NULL) Sami> + return; Spurious blank line. Sami> + bcache_xfree(bcache->bcache); Space before paren. Sami> +static const struct partial_symbol * Sami> +psymbol_bcache_full (struct partial_symbol *sym, Sami> + struct psymbol_bcache *bcache, Sami> + int *added) Sami> +{ Sami> + return bcache_full (sym, Wrong indentation. Sami> +/* A bcache for partial symbols. */ Sami> + Sami> +struct psymbol_bcache { I usually put the brace in column 0 on the next line. I don't think we're consistent here though. Sami> +extern struct psymbol_bcache *psymbol_bcache_init (); (void) Tom