From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 30617 invoked by alias); 20 May 2015 07:39:16 -0000 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 Received: (qmail 30608 invoked by uid 89); 20 May 2015 07:39:15 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KAM_LAZY_DOMAIN_SECURITY autolearn=no version=3.3.2 X-HELO: rock.gnat.com Received: from rock.gnat.com (HELO rock.gnat.com) (205.232.38.15) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES256-SHA encrypted) ESMTPS; Wed, 20 May 2015 07:39:15 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4630D289C0; Wed, 20 May 2015 03:39:13 -0400 (EDT) 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 W5OVajoLnDRK; Wed, 20 May 2015 03:39:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 15E7B289BF; Wed, 20 May 2015 03:39:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 6B3C540DAA; Wed, 20 May 2015 09:39:12 +0200 (CEST) Date: Wed, 20 May 2015 07:39:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Cc: Jerome Guitton Subject: pushed: [RFA/commit] Memory leak in on reading frame register Message-ID: <20150520073912.GB4695@adacore.com> References: <1431100524-7793-1-git-send-email-brobecker@adacore.com> <55508A83.3060605@redhat.com> <20150511205312.GE4767@adacore.com> <5551CB20.4090104@redhat.com> <20150515155823.GL4767@adacore.com> <555B0AC2.7080506@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <555B0AC2.7080506@redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-SW-Source: 2015-05/txt/msg00515.txt.bz2 > > A very accurate guess, as it turns out. Condition evaluation > > is not the problem, here, but indeed, we a couple of calls to > > handle_inferior in addition to each call to > > bpstat_check_breakpoint_conditions. The former are responsible > > for the leak. > > > > How about the attached patch? > > Looks good to me. Thank you, Pedro. Patch has been pushed to master. -- Joel