From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <sourceware-bugzilla@sourceware.org>
Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48)
 id A96D9385841F; Tue,  1 Mar 2022 14:34:45 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org A96D9385841F
From: "gprocida at google dot com" <sourceware-bugzilla@sourceware.org>
To: libabigail@sourceware.org
Subject: [Bug default/26646] unexpected declaration-only types
Date: Tue, 01 Mar 2022 14:34:45 +0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: libabigail
X-Bugzilla-Component: default
X-Bugzilla-Version: unspecified
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: 
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: gprocida at google dot com
X-Bugzilla-Status: ASSIGNED
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P2
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: dodji at redhat dot com
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-26646-9487-eYZf6W8Pom@http.sourceware.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-26646-9487@http.sourceware.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-26646-9487@http.sourceware.org/bugzilla/>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-BeenThere: libabigail@sourceware.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Mailing list of the Libabigail project <libabigail.sourceware.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://sourceware.org/mailman/options/libabigail>,
 <mailto:libabigail-request@sourceware.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://sourceware.org/pipermail/libabigail/>
List-Help: <mailto:libabigail-request@sourceware.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://sourceware.org/mailman/listinfo/libabigail>,
 <mailto:libabigail-request@sourceware.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 01 Mar 2022 14:34:45 -0000

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D26646

--- Comment #29 from gprocida at google dot com ---
Hi.

On Mon, 28 Feb 2022 at 09:59, dodji at redhat dot com
<sourceware-bugzilla@sourceware.org> wrote:
>
> https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D26646
>
> --- Comment #27 from dodji at redhat dot com ---
> (In reply to gprocida from comment #20)
>
> [...]
>
> > In terms of the code...
> >
> > I think it would be better to store pairs of offsets though it would
> > probably be extremely hard to find an example where this would make any
> > difference.
>
> I have update the patch to do just that.
>
> I posted it for review at
> https://sourceware.org/pipermail/libabigail/2022q1/004178.html.
>

Two (overlapping) things:

1. I wouldn't bother with inserting / testing / erasing the reverse
pair o(p2, p1)

It might cost more than it ever saves. But it would take
instrumentation to see if it ever makes a difference.

If you make this change then s/unordered pair/ordered pair/ in the doc
comments.

2. There is a typo.

One of the reverse pairs is written as o(p2, 1).

Otherwise, it looks good to me.

Giuliano.

> If it works for you, I'll be glad to apply it.
>
> [...]
>
> Thanks.
>
> --
> You are receiving this mail because:
> You are on the CC list for the bug.

--=20
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.=