From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 2321 invoked by alias); 18 Dec 2011 11:42:11 -0000 Received: (qmail 2312 invoked by uid 22791); 18 Dec 2011 11:42:10 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-5.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS,TW_BJ X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Sun, 18 Dec 2011 11:41:47 +0000 Received: from int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.22]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id pBIBfilV030163 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Sun, 18 Dec 2011 06:41:44 -0500 Received: from host2.jankratochvil.net (ovpn-116-60.ams2.redhat.com [10.36.116.60]) by int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id pBIBfens004867 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Sun, 18 Dec 2011 06:41:43 -0500 Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2011 11:54:00 -0000 From: Jan Kratochvil To: Pedro Alves Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org, tromey@redhat.com Subject: Re: [patch] Replace reread_symbols by load+free calls Message-ID: <20111218114140.GA22534@host2.jankratochvil.net> References: <8ac60eac0906101839t4d3978fyc1c6d3b3e2eccb6e@mail.gmail.com> <20090625192120.GA29930@host0.dyn.jankratochvil.net> <200908150010.00090.pedro@codesourcery.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200908150010.00090.pedro@codesourcery.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) 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: 2011-12/txt/msg00597.txt.bz2 On Sat, 15 Aug 2009 01:09:59 +0200, Pedro Alves wrote: > On Friday 14 August 2009 23:34:31, Tom Tromey wrote: > > > I realize you pulled this patch from consideration. But, FWIW, I tend > > to think it is a good idea, because it ensures that all the hooks and > > observers will be run identically in both cases. > > I have to say that I didn't think it was a good idea, because of the > way the change ties the objfiles to solib.c, and the fact that > it makes it so that an objfile pointer becomes more volatile. This is correct, because when someone holds a pointer to volatile data valgrind should report it as invalid. And each such code needs to be reviewed anyway so changing it along is not such a concern. Regards, Jan