From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 16205 invoked by alias); 22 Dec 2008 04:35:49 -0000 Received: (qmail 16192 invoked by uid 22791); 22 Dec 2008 04:35:47 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from rock.gnat.com (HELO rock.gnat.com) (205.232.38.15) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Mon, 22 Dec 2008 04:35:11 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EE6292A95F9; Sun, 21 Dec 2008 23:35:09 -0500 (EST) Received: from rock.gnat.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (rock.gnat.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 6WKkk4wNzksw; Sun, 21 Dec 2008 23:35:09 -0500 (EST) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 796EE2A95F6; Sun, 21 Dec 2008 23:35:09 -0500 (EST) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 146E7E7ACD; Mon, 22 Dec 2008 08:35:02 +0400 (RET) Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2008 04:35:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Jan Kratochvil Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [patch] Fix completion memory double-free Message-ID: <20081222043502.GC25416@adacore.com> References: <20081220005103.GA19202@host0.dyn.jankratochvil.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20081220005103.GA19202@host0.dyn.jankratochvil.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.2i 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: 2008-12/txt/msg00370.txt.bz2 > 2008-12-20 Jan Kratochvil > > Fix memory double-free. > * completer.c (line_completion_function): Clear LIST after called xfree. Approved. > gdb/testsuite/ > 2008-12-20 Jan Kratochvil > > * gdb.base/completion.exp (Completing non-existing component): New test. And approved. I really wonder if the "sleep 1" is needed in this case. A 1sec sleeping delay is a LOT of time :-(, particularly since we can't run more than one testcase at a time. Thanks for the fix! -- Joel