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

[David Gibson <david-xT8FGy+AXnRB3Ne2BGzF6laj5H9X9Tb+@public.gmane.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1689 bytes --]

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.

-- 
David Gibson			| I'll have my music baroque, and my code
david AT gibson.dropbear.id.au	| minimalist, thank you.  NOT _the_ _other_
				| _way_ _around_!
http://www.ozlabs.org/~dgibson

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]