From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 8488 invoked by alias); 5 Jun 2008 18:46:00 -0000 Received: (qmail 8480 invoked by uid 22791); 5 Jun 2008 18:46:00 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail.codesourcery.com (HELO mail.codesourcery.com) (65.74.133.4) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Thu, 05 Jun 2008 18:45:42 +0000 Received: (qmail 20632 invoked from network); 5 Jun 2008 18:45:41 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO orlando.local) (pedro@127.0.0.2) by mail.codesourcery.com with ESMTPA; 5 Jun 2008 18:45:41 -0000 From: Pedro Alves To: Daniel Jacobowitz Subject: Re: remove global stop_bpstat dependency from breakpoints module Date: Thu, 05 Jun 2008 18:46:00 -0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.9 Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <200805080222.04976.pedro@codesourcery.com> <200806051927.07953.pedro@codesourcery.com> <20080605183347.GD16610@caradoc.them.org> In-Reply-To: <20080605183347.GD16610@caradoc.them.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200806051945.43493.pedro@codesourcery.com> 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: 2008-06/txt/msg00053.txt.bz2 A Thursday 05 June 2008 19:33:47, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > On Thu, Jun 05, 2008 at 07:27:07PM +0100, Pedro Alves wrote: > > As I said, I would mind at all to change this to the read > > the PC of the current thread. Just pointing out the current > > behaviour. > > I think that would be correcting it to the right behavior. In 99% of > the cases where this is used at all, they mean the same thing. I'll just post a patch to do that. > I don't like reference counting as a solution to clear memory > management. Sometimes it's necessary or helpful, but here I think it > just gives us room to be careless (and have to worry more about > leaks). Ok. Obviously, I disagree. :-) -- Pedro Alves