From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 12271 invoked by alias); 16 Apr 2006 23:53:33 -0000 Received: (qmail 12263 invoked by uid 22791); 16 Apr 2006 23:53:32 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from sibelius.xs4all.nl (HELO sibelius.xs4all.nl) (82.92.89.47) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Sun, 16 Apr 2006 23:53:31 +0000 Received: from elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl (root@elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl [192.168.0.2]) by sibelius.xs4all.nl (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id k3GNqolM019969; Mon, 17 Apr 2006 01:52:50 +0200 (CEST) Received: from elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl (kettenis@localhost.sibelius.xs4all.nl [127.0.0.1]) by elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id k3GNqoGP031945; Mon, 17 Apr 2006 01:52:50 +0200 (CEST) Received: (from kettenis@localhost) by elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl (8.13.6/8.13.6/Submit) id k3GNqoQk029489; Mon, 17 Apr 2006 01:52:50 +0200 (CEST) Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2006 23:53:00 -0000 Message-Id: <200604162352.k3GNqoQk029489@elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl> From: Mark Kettenis To: drow@false.org CC: msnyder@redhat.com, mark.kettenis@xs4all.nl, gdb-patches@sourceware.org In-reply-to: <20060413225945.GB30759@nevyn.them.org> (message from Daniel Jacobowitz on Thu, 13 Apr 2006 18:59:45 -0400) Subject: Re: Save the length of inserted breakpoints References: <20060302221711.GB18830@nevyn.them.org> <200603022301.k22N1qEt008208@elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl> <20060411214613.GA702@nevyn.them.org> <200604120943.k3C9hYJ8012016@elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl> <20060412125712.GA22145@nevyn.them.org> <200604121837.k3CIbMwu004466@elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl> <20060412184717.GA29980@nevyn.them.org> <443EC947.9060109@redhat.com> <20060413225945.GB30759@nevyn.them.org> Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2006-04/txt/msg00211.txt.bz2 > Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2006 18:59:45 -0400 > From: Daniel Jacobowitz > > On Thu, Apr 13, 2006 at 02:57:27PM -0700, Michael Snyder wrote: > > I haven't followed this discussion closely, so forgive me > > if I'm recapitulating something that's already been said. > > > > What about something like "void *target_data" in the breakpoint struct? > > The target can add whatever it likes, and the core breakpoint code > > doesn't need to know what it is. If it's non-null when the bp is > > freed, then the target should be given an opportunity to delete it. > > I'd be fine with that too; personally I think it's about the same, > except a bit of additional complexity for deallocation. Which is a complecity we should try very hard to avoid. There are too many memory leaks in GDB already (so far I've been too scared to look at the resulrs for the Coverity scan for GDB). Mark