From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 19930 invoked by alias); 26 Feb 2003 18:20:34 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 19913 invoked from network); 26 Feb 2003 18:20:34 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO localhost.redhat.com) (172.16.49.200) by 172.16.49.205 with SMTP; 26 Feb 2003 18:20:34 -0000 Received: from redhat.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1EA402A9C; Wed, 26 Feb 2003 13:22:50 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3E5D05F9.6050605@redhat.com> Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 18:20:00 -0000 From: Andrew Cagney User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; NetBSD macppc; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20030223 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Daniel Jacobowitz Cc: Michal Ludvig , Elena Zannoni , GDB Patches Subject: Re: PING: [RFA] Runtime Dwarf2 CFI engine cleanup References: <3E197C8F.3010903@suse.cz> <15934.38824.98344.150611@localhost.redhat.com> <3E479B6A.30705@suse.cz> <3E5CDEB8.2050008@suse.cz> <20030226154714.GA11458@nevyn.them.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2003-02/txt/msg00721.txt.bz2 > > > I don't think that the way you're selecting objfiles to unload is ideal > - you're duplicating logic from objfile_purge_solibs. We need a more > general hook to free objfile-specific information. However, I believe > that can be addressed separately, and this will definitely fix some > crashes as-is and not introduce any new ones. > > I don't have any problem with linking dwarf2cfi.o in for all targets. > Let's sit on this for another day and see if anyone else objects, and > then you can commit it. A quick look at the bigger picture reveals: - the underlying code needs to be fixed before it is linked into all targets. - if it needs to be modified of changes in another part of gdb then it should use an observer. It should not introduce another hack. You'll note that Joel and I are currently working through this. Yes it means that the posted patch doesn't go in. It also means that GDB is that bit more (not less) maintainable. > You made a line in Makefile.in too wide; please fix that before you > check it in. > > [List: my assumption in approving this is that the dwarf2cfi support is > not part of the dwarf2 reader, so I'm not stepping on anyone's toes. > If you disagree, please tell me so.] Puzzled expression. Andrew