Re: More on DWARF2

[Jim Blandy <jimb at zwingli dot cygnus dot com>]

Daniel Berlin <dan@cgsoftware.com> writes:
> You're proposing something that is about 75% of the work of what i've
> done.  
> However, it requires *more* memory than we currently use, because it
> would mean retaining more info, with no real way to distinguish the
> lifetimes of the info.
> I actually started by doing that, and then noticed we might as well
> just modularize it the whole way, and keep all the info about a given
> compilation unit, in a structure for that compilation unit, so we
> could throw it out when that compilation unit was done.
> You are proposing something that still keeps around the global
> variables, etc.
> It's the difference between 2 months, and 2 and a half months, of
> coding.  I figured since the original design had come back
> to bite us in the ass, I might as well do what I could to prevent it
> from happening again, and if it did happen, to make it so pieces could
> be reused without so much pain and suffering.

That seems reasonable.  I know it sounds otherwise, but I'm not so
much proposing an alternative approach as checking my understanding of
the issues.

> Unless, of course, you start introducing more global variables to
> communicate state, which IMHO, is a bad idea.

I agree.