From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 6291 invoked by alias); 12 Feb 2009 18:02:25 -0000 Received: (qmail 6119 invoked by uid 22791); 12 Feb 2009 18:02:24 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from NaN.false.org (HELO nan.false.org) (208.75.86.248) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Thu, 12 Feb 2009 18:02:19 +0000 Received: from nan.false.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2ED2D107F8; Thu, 12 Feb 2009 18:02:17 +0000 (GMT) Received: from caradoc.them.org (209.195.188.212.nauticom.net [209.195.188.212]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D72CC107F2; Thu, 12 Feb 2009 18:02:16 +0000 (GMT) Received: from drow by caradoc.them.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1LXft9-0005kk-TF; Thu, 12 Feb 2009 13:02:15 -0500 Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2009 18:02:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Tom Tromey Cc: Vladimir Prus , Marc Khouzam , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com, Nick Roberts Subject: Re: MI solib notification Message-ID: <20090212180215.GA22097@caradoc.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Tom Tromey , Vladimir Prus , Marc Khouzam , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com, Nick Roberts References: <200901310010.46738.vladimir@codesourcery.com> <200902121212.53025.vladimir@codesourcery.com> <20090212132247.GA3107@caradoc.them.org> <200902121801.55254.vladimir@codesourcery.com> <20090212151337.GA9460@caradoc.them.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2008-05-11) 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: 2009-02/txt/msg00288.txt.bz2 On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 10:35:29AM -0700, Tom Tromey wrote: > I actually already approved this hunk in another thread -- Paul > Pluzhnikov's recent patch. Oh, interesting. > My rationale for approving it was that for this observer to be > reliable, it has to be called every place an so is freed. I was even > thinking the call should probably be pushed into free_so. > > Now I'm thinking I don't understand this code as well as I thought I > did :}. I hope I didn't cause too much trouble. I agree with your rationale. I almost suggested we push the aout check down into disable_breakpoints_in_unloaded_shlib... what do you think? -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery