Re: [PATCH 2/5] annotations: Add position information to various calls

[Julia Lawall <julia.lawall-L2FTfq7BK8M@public.gmane.org>]

On Wed, 10 Jan 2018, David Gibson wrote:

> On Tue, Jan 09, 2018 at 01:27:48PM +0100, Julia Lawall wrote:
> > > > +struct srcpos *
> > > > +srcpos_copy_all(struct srcpos *pos)
> > > > +{
> > > > +	struct srcpos *pos_new;
> > > > +	struct srcfile_state *srcfile_state;
> > > > +
> > > > +	if (!pos)
> > > > +		return NULL;
> > > > +
> > > > +	pos_new = srcpos_copy(pos);
> > > > +
> > > > +	if (pos_new) {
> > > > +		/* allocate without free */
> > > > +		srcfile_state = xmalloc(sizeof(struct srcfile_state));
> > > > +		memcpy(srcfile_state, pos->file, sizeof(struct srcfile_state));
> > > > +
> > > > +		pos_new->file = srcfile_state;
> > > > +	}
> > > > +
> > > > +	return pos_new;
> > > > +}
> > >
> > > I don't really see a reason we'd need both a deep and a shallow copy.
> > > If you need a deep copy, I'd suggest just changing srcpos_copy() to do
> > > that.
> >
> > The deep copy is needed due to the treatment of #includes.  The following
> > function overwrites the file name information:
> >
> > void srcpos_set_line(char *f, int l)
> > {
> >         current_srcfile->name = f;
> >         current_srcfile->lineno = l;
> > }
> >
> > srcpos_combine doesn't need to use the deep copy, because the result gets
> > copied again.  Maybe this is not a big issue or there is a better way to
> > solve this.
>
> Well, dtbs are generally so small that performance really isn't an
> issue for dtc.  So I think simplifying the code to only have one
> (deep) copy routine is worth more than the minor speedup from avoiding
> deep copies in some places they're not necessary.

OK, I will do this.

julia