From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 10461 invoked by alias); 14 Dec 2012 10:12:28 -0000 Received: (qmail 10453 invoked by uid 22791); 14 Dec 2012 10:12:27 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-7.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_RCVD_UNTRUST,KHOP_THREADED,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS,TW_QX 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, 14 Dec 2012 10:12:19 +0000 Received: from int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.24]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id qBEACF0H016615 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Fri, 14 Dec 2012 05:12:16 -0500 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.ams2.redhat.com [10.39.146.11]) by int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id qBE9j5g9022023; Fri, 14 Dec 2012 04:45:06 -0500 Message-ID: <50CAF521.3040307@redhat.com> Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2012 10:12:00 -0000 From: Pedro Alves User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/17.0 Thunderbird/17.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Pierre Muller CC: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [RFA] Fix memory leak in windows_xfer_shared_libraries References: <50c9b7e6.25f2440a.3810.3771SMTPIN_ADDED_BROKEN@mx.google.com> <50CA3784.2030706@redhat.com> <000301cdd9d0$0db345d0$2919d170$@muller@ics-cnrs.unistra.fr> In-Reply-To: <000301cdd9d0$0db345d0$2919d170$@muller@ics-cnrs.unistra.fr> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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: 2012-12/txt/msg00485.txt.bz2 On 12/14/2012 07:53 AM, Pierre Muller wrote: >>> I was also wondering if it would not be better to keep the obstack in >>> between the two calls, but that would probably require some static >> variable >>> :( >> >> That'd be fine. We actually do that in some cases in gdbserver, like >> handle_qxfer_threads and handle_qxfer_traceframe_info. It just didn't >> look like worth it enough to bother when I initially wrote this. > > I was wondering if this would become a problem if we later add support for > multiple inferior > for windows-nat I don't think so. > I vaguely remember that I tried to achieve this a long time ago... ISTR you had an archer branch for that and other Windows stuff. > > Anyhow, the memory leak is gone at least! Thanks. -- Pedro Alves