From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 5782 invoked by alias); 5 Jan 2004 18:59:54 -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 5775 invoked from network); 5 Jan 2004 18:59:53 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO touchme.toronto.redhat.com) (216.129.200.20) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 5 Jan 2004 18:59:53 -0000 Received: from redhat.com (toocool.toronto.redhat.com [172.16.14.72]) by touchme.toronto.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5E04780006F; Mon, 5 Jan 2004 13:59:53 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3FF9B429.6080501@redhat.com> Date: Mon, 05 Jan 2004 18:59:00 -0000 From: "J. Johnston" Organization: Red Hat Inc. User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 Netscape/7.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Andrew Cagney Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [RFA]: Fix do_cleanups if oldchain is NULL References: <3FE0C502.7020408@redhat.com> <3FF59719.7020908@gnu.org> In-Reply-To: <3FF59719.7020908@gnu.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2004-01/txt/msg00096.txt.bz2 Andrew Cagney wrote: >> I recently solved a bug on the ia64 concerning cleanups. What was >> happening was that a cleanup list was being re-initialized to NULL >> inside a loop and later do_cleanups() was called. This caused the >> entire cleanup list to be run because the design is to run the list >> until the passed in cleanup is reached. This caused other errors when >> the stream being used was deleted, etc... >> >> This patch adds a check to do_my_cleanups() so no cleanups will be >> performed if the passed in chain is NULL. >> >> Ok to commit? > > > (hmm, no one thought to review this while I was on hols :-() > I think the bug is in the calling code, and not utils.c. That patch > unfortunatly makes a fundamental change to the core of the cleanup code > and there's no easy way of demonstrating that other callers aren't > assuming that NULL implies do all cleanups. > > Andrew > Perhaps, but there is no way to properly initialize a cleanup to avoid compiler warnings. If you set it to NULL which is the obvious choice, this currently means run all cleanups. IMHO, this is the wrong choice for the default. I found no cases where NULL was passed in directly. Do you see a case where a gdb routine has the right to run all previous cleanups except in an exit scenario? -- Jeff J. > >> -- Jeff J. >> >> 2003-12-17 Jeff Johnston >> >> * utils.c (do_my_cleanups): Don't do cleanups if old chain >> passed in is NULL. > > > >