From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 26653 invoked by alias); 20 Jul 2012 18:07:33 -0000 Received: (qmail 26641 invoked by uid 22791); 20 Jul 2012 18:07:32 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_RCVD_UNTRUST,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_W,SPF_HELO_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD 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; Fri, 20 Jul 2012 18:07:13 +0000 Received: from int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.12]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q6KI7CU2024695 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK) for ; Fri, 20 Jul 2012 14:07:13 -0400 Received: from host2.jankratochvil.net (ovpn-116-30.ams2.redhat.com [10.36.116.30]) by int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q6KI79TN026036 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Fri, 20 Jul 2012 14:07:12 -0400 Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2012 18:07:00 -0000 From: Jan Kratochvil To: Tom Tromey Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 02/10] clean up allocation of bfd filenames Message-ID: <20120720180705.GA25523@host2.jankratochvil.net> References: <87r4s83lu5.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> <20120719185134.GA16054@host2.jankratochvil.net> <87394nxya6.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> <87629iwg2p.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <87629iwg2p.fsf@fleche.redhat.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: 2012-07/txt/msg00413.txt.bz2 On Fri, 20 Jul 2012 18:30:22 +0200, Tom Tromey wrote: > I remembered the argument that made me decide to do it in gdb. > > BFD made a choice, long ago, to have clients manage the memory for the > filename. OK, if BFD has already made this decision I sure have no more comments. Thanks for remembering it, Jan