|
From: Josef W. <Jos...@gm...> - 2009-08-13 23:55:42
|
On Friday 14 August 2009, Nicholas Nethercote wrote: > On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 8:02 AM, Josef > Weidendorfer<Jos...@gm...> wrote: > > On Wednesday 12 August 2009, Nicholas Nethercote wrote: > >> Can you post the patch here? The change sounds ok to me in principle, > >> but I think you'll have to create a new file > >> include/pub_tool_transtab.h so I'd like to see the patch. Thanks. > > > > See attachment. > > As there is a dependance on m_scheduler, I thought it would be better to > > make it part of the scheduler. The scheduler has already a dependency on > > transtab... > > > > Julian wanted to rethink whether there could be any further problems for > > discarding translations from tools. However, there is already a client > > request for discarding translations. So I think this should be safe. > > Three comments: > > - I'd still rather see it in pub_tool_transtab.h. I don't see a good > reason for breaking our convention that m_foo declarations live in > pub_core_foo.h/pub_tool_foo.h. > > - Rather than creating the new VG_(discard_all_translations), I'd > prefer to just make VG_(discard_translations) visible to tools. It's > more flexible, and I'm sure at some point some tool will want to only > discard translations from part of the address space. > > - This should go in after 3.5.0, just to minimise changes at this very > late stage. I figure this isn't a problem as it's just an internal > clean-up and not visible to the user. I am fine with all of your comments. However, for making VG_(discard_translations) safe for tools, the assertion to check that we are not inside of translated code is really useful (we do not want to discard code we currently are executing). This will produce a dependency of transtab to scheduler :( Josef > > N > |