[v2,0/5] Fix and cleanups in jit.c

Message ID 20191216033917.2936248-1-simon.marchi@polymtl.ca
Headers show
Series
  • Fix and cleanups in jit.c
Related show

Message

Simon Marchi Dec. 16, 2019, 3:39 a.m.
This is a follow-up to:

  https://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2019-12/msg00568.html

Again, the first patch is a fix and the rest is some c++ification.

I think I fixed all review comments from v1, the biggest change being
the use of std::forward_list instead of std::vector.

Simon Marchi (5):
  Fix double-free when creating more than one block in JIT debug info
    reader
  jit: c++-ify gdb_symtab
  jit: make gdb_object::symtabs an std::forward_list
  jit: c++-ify gdb_block
  jit: make gdb_symtab::blocks an std::forward_list

 gdb/jit.c                             | 207 ++++++++++----------------
 gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/jit-reader.exp |  14 +-
 gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/jithost.c      |  45 ++++--
 gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/jithost.h      |  15 +-
 gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/jitreader.c    |  34 +++--
 5 files changed, 158 insertions(+), 157 deletions(-)

-- 
2.24.1

Comments

Pedro Alves Dec. 16, 2019, 7:27 p.m. | #1
On 12/16/19 3:39 AM, Simon Marchi wrote:
> This is a follow-up to:

> 

>   https://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2019-12/msg00568.html

> 

> Again, the first patch is a fix and the rest is some c++ification.

> 

> I think I fixed all review comments from v1, the biggest change being

> the use of std::forward_list instead of std::vector.


Thanks, LGTM.

Pedro Alves
Simon Marchi Dec. 16, 2019, 11:19 p.m. | #2
On 2019-12-16 2:27 p.m., Pedro Alves wrote:
> On 12/16/19 3:39 AM, Simon Marchi wrote:

>> This is a follow-up to:

>>

>>   https://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2019-12/msg00568.html

>>

>> Again, the first patch is a fix and the rest is some c++ification.

>>

>> I think I fixed all review comments from v1, the biggest change being

>> the use of std::forward_list instead of std::vector.

> 

> Thanks, LGTM.

> 

> Pedro Alves


Thanks, I pushed the series.  Do you think I should push patch 1/5
to the stable branch?  It's not a new bug introduced in the last cycle,
it's been there forever, so I'm not sure what we usually do in these
cases.

Simon
Pedro Alves Dec. 17, 2019, 7:10 p.m. | #3
On 12/16/19 11:19 PM, Simon Marchi wrote:
> On 2019-12-16 2:27 p.m., Pedro Alves wrote:

>> On 12/16/19 3:39 AM, Simon Marchi wrote:

>>> This is a follow-up to:

>>>

>>>   https://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2019-12/msg00568.html

>>>

>>> Again, the first patch is a fix and the rest is some c++ification.

>>>

>>> I think I fixed all review comments from v1, the biggest change being

>>> the use of std::forward_list instead of std::vector.

>>

>> Thanks, LGTM.

>>

>> Pedro Alves

> 

> Thanks, I pushed the series.  Do you think I should push patch 1/5

> to the stable branch?  It's not a new bug introduced in the last cycle,

> it's been there forever, so I'm not sure what we usually do in these

> cases.

Sure, that's fine with me.  Generally it's fine to backport bugfixes
that are supposedly safe, and not invasive, such as this one.

Thanks,
Pedro Alves
Simon Marchi Dec. 17, 2019, 7:32 p.m. | #4
On 2019-12-17 2:10 p.m., Pedro Alves wrote:
> On 12/16/19 11:19 PM, Simon Marchi wrote:

>> On 2019-12-16 2:27 p.m., Pedro Alves wrote:

>>> On 12/16/19 3:39 AM, Simon Marchi wrote:

>>>> This is a follow-up to:

>>>>

>>>>   https://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2019-12/msg00568.html

>>>>

>>>> Again, the first patch is a fix and the rest is some c++ification.

>>>>

>>>> I think I fixed all review comments from v1, the biggest change being

>>>> the use of std::forward_list instead of std::vector.

>>>

>>> Thanks, LGTM.

>>>

>>> Pedro Alves

>>

>> Thanks, I pushed the series.  Do you think I should push patch 1/5

>> to the stable branch?  It's not a new bug introduced in the last cycle,

>> it's been there forever, so I'm not sure what we usually do in these

>> cases.

> Sure, that's fine with me.  Generally it's fine to backport bugfixes

> that are supposedly safe, and not invasive, such as this one.


Ok, thanks, I pushed just that patch to the gdb-9-branch branch.

Simon