From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 17911 invoked by alias); 9 Feb 2004 22:25:37 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 17902 invoked from network); 9 Feb 2004 22:25:36 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO nevyn.them.org) (66.93.172.17) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 9 Feb 2004 22:25:36 -0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 4.30 #1 (Debian)) id 1AqJqO-0001rR-S7 for ; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 17:25:32 -0500 Date: Mon, 09 Feb 2004 22:25:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: Avoid obstack_free in cp-namespace.c Message-ID: <20040209222532.GA3931@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com References: <20040209211010.GA25073@nevyn.them.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.1i X-SW-Source: 2004-02/txt/msg00213.txt.bz2 On Mon, Feb 09, 2004 at 01:15:28PM -0800, David Carlton wrote: > On Mon, 9 Feb 2004 16:10:10 -0500, Daniel Jacobowitz said: > > > What do you think of this change? It makes the assumption that > > lookup_block_symbol will not allocate anything on the objfile > > obstack, which is no longer true in a patch I'm testing. I really > > dislike obstack_free for this exact reason. > > Makes sense to me. Checked in. -- Daniel Jacobowitz MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer