[PATCH] D48501: [dsymutil] Introduce a new CachedBinaryHolder

[Frederic Riss via Phabricator via llvm-commits]

friss added a comment.

Why not transition completely to the new implementation and remove the old code in one step?

Should we have a limited number of files that we keep open? Some systems might run with a low number of allowed open files per-process.

This code is supposed to handle a lot of weird cases, can you make sure that all of this still works:

- fat object files
- thin archive containing fat object-files
- fat archive containing thin objectfiles

(I think the current code handles all of them, but I might be wrong. Please double-check)



================
Comment at: llvm/tools/dsymutil/BinaryHolder.cpp:254-259
+void CachedBinaryHolder::clear() {
+  std::lock_guard<std::mutex> ArchiveLock(ArchiveCacheMutex);
+  std::lock_guard<std::mutex> ObjectLock(ObjectCacheMutex);
+  ArchiveCache.clear();
+  ObjectCache.clear();
+}
----------------
Do we need a clear() method as this object basically never dies?


https://reviews.llvm.org/D48501