On Wed, Aug 28, 2024 at 02:31:05PM +0200, Petr Pavlu wrote:
> On 8/26/24 20:47, Sami Tolvanen wrote:
> > How do you propose using the function? This loop goes through multiple
> > input files, should we need them, and we iterate through all the CUs
> > in process_modules.
>
> I was thinking it could be possible to replace the code to traverse
> modules and their their CUs, that is functions process_modules() and
> process_module(), with dwfl_nextcu(). However, I now notice that more
> work is added in subsequent patches to process_modules() so this
> wouldn't quite work.
>
> I would then only suggest to change some function names in the current
> code. Function process_modules() is a callback to process a single
> module and so it would be better to name it process_module(). The
> present function process_module() actually processes a compilation unit
> DIE so I would rename it to something like process_cu().
Sure, sounds reasonable. I'll rename these.
> On 8/15/24 19:39, Sami Tolvanen wrote:
> > +int process_module(Dwfl_Module *mod, Dwarf *dbg, Dwarf_Die *cudie)
> > +{
> > + struct state state = { .mod = mod, .dbg = dbg };
> > +
> > + return check(process_die_container(
> > + &state, cudie, process_exported_symbols, match_all));
> > +}
>
> Mostly a minor suggestion too.. Looking at the entire series, state.mod
> ends up unused and state.dbg is only used in process_cached() where it
> could be possibly replaced by doing dwarf_cu_getdwarf(die->cu)?
Ah yes, mod was was leftover from previous refactoring. I'll clean this
up.
> Removing these two members from the state struct would then allow to
> instantiate a new state in process_exported_symbols() for each processed
> symbol. That looks cleaner than changing state.sym and resetting some
> parts of the state as the function walks over the exported symbols.
Agreed, that makes sense.
Sami
