From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 6100 invoked by alias); 20 Jul 2009 14:42:33 -0000 Received: (qmail 6086 invoked by uid 22791); 20 Jul 2009 14:42:32 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail-px0-f183.google.com (HELO mail-px0-f183.google.com) (209.85.216.183) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Mon, 20 Jul 2009 14:42:25 +0000 Received: by pxi13 with SMTP id 13so1855448pxi.12 for ; Mon, 20 Jul 2009 07:42:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.140.157.1 with SMTP id f1mr2212202rve.189.1248100942392; Mon, 20 Jul 2009 07:42:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hotblack.localnet ([189.4.46.16]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id k2sm23359309rvb.52.2009.07.20.07.42.20 (version=SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Mon, 20 Jul 2009 07:42:21 -0700 (PDT) From: Thiago Jung Bauermann To: Daniel Jacobowitz Subject: Re: Value reference counting Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2009 14:57:00 -0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.11.4 (Linux/2.6.30-1-amd64; KDE/4.2.4; x86_64; ; ) Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org, Tom Tromey , Vladimir Prus References: <20090717184152.GA6863@caradoc.them.org> <200907201022.19758.thiago.bauermann@gmail.com> <20090720132650.GA1875@caradoc.them.org> In-Reply-To: <20090720132650.GA1875@caradoc.them.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200907201143.42967.thiago.bauermann@gmail.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: 2009-07/txt/msg00483.txt.bz2 Em Segunda-feira 20 Julho 2009 10:26:50 Daniel Jacobowitz escreveu: > On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 10:22:19AM -0300, Thiago Jung Bauermann wrote: > > Watchpoints hold their own references to values. Other than that, IMHO if > > watchpoint code causes values to be leaked, that is a bug, not a special > > feature which should be respected... WDYT? > > Confused by your question :-) > > The way free_all_values works is that it's only run after a command. > For instance, a breakpoint command, or a user-typed command. It's not > run every time we stop the target and do some thinking if the thinking > is not in the form of a command. So it's possible to get values > created that don't get cleaned up for a while. Right. And that's what I'm complaining about. You're talking about intermediate values generated every time the inferior stops and the watchpoint expression is evaluated, right? That's what I'm thinking about. If you're just thinking about the values stored in struct breakpoint, then I agree with you... > Leaked was probably not the right word, just not GC'd promptly. Yes, and I'm complaining about not GCing for a great, out-of-our-control, while... Am I having a delusion here? :-) -- []'s Thiago Jung Bauermann