From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 31662 invoked by alias); 28 Jun 2007 23:12:29 -0000 Received: (qmail 31654 invoked by uid 22791); 28 Jun 2007 23:12:28 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from NaN.false.org (HELO nan.false.org) (208.75.86.248) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Thu, 28 Jun 2007 23:12:25 +0000 Received: from nan.false.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DE325982A2; Thu, 28 Jun 2007 23:12:23 +0000 (GMT) Received: from caradoc.them.org (22.svnf5.xdsl.nauticom.net [209.195.183.55]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B11679817E; Thu, 28 Jun 2007 23:12:23 +0000 (GMT) Received: from drow by caradoc.them.org with local (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1I439V-0003hr-9U; Thu, 28 Jun 2007 19:11:53 -0400 Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2007 00:24:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Michael Snyder Cc: msnyder@sonic.net, gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [OB] Add cleanup, source.c Message-ID: <20070628231153.GA14231@caradoc.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Michael Snyder , msnyder@sonic.net, gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <9270.12.7.175.2.1183069663.squirrel@webmail.sonic.net> <20070628224815.GC12578@caradoc.them.org> <655C3D4066B7954481633935A40BB36F041427@ussunex02.svl.access-company.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <655C3D4066B7954481633935A40BB36F041427@ussunex02.svl.access-company.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.15 (2007-04-09) X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2007-06/txt/msg00510.txt.bz2 On Thu, Jun 28, 2007 at 03:59:23PM -0700, Michael Snyder wrote: > > > > There's no call to do_cleanups in this function, so it's quite hard to > > see if this cleanup will be run or discarded if error is not called. > > When are they ever discarded? > > My last understanding of the mechanism was that the cleanups > always get called, eventually. Presumably when we return to > the command / event loop. No, that's not right. Cleanups are often discarded after a successful operation, in order to not free something that would have been cleaned up on error. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery