From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 122181 invoked by alias); 31 Mar 2015 12:08:20 -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 122104 invoked by uid 89); 31 Mar 2015 12:08:19 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES256-GCM-SHA384 encrypted) ESMTPS; Tue, 31 Mar 2015 12:08:12 +0000 Received: from int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.23]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id t2VC832I020268 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=FAIL); Tue, 31 Mar 2015 08:08:03 -0400 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.ams2.redhat.com [10.39.146.11]) by int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id t2VC81nH025899; Tue, 31 Mar 2015 08:08:02 -0400 Message-ID: <551A8E21.2010103@redhat.com> Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2015 12:08:00 -0000 From: Pedro Alves User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Doug Evans , Andrew Burgess CC: gdb-patches Subject: Re: [PATCH] gdb: New frame_cache_cleared observer. References: <1427303468-17834-1-git-send-email-andrew.burgess@embecosm.com> <5513D04B.1070602@redhat.com> <20150326125012.GB11596@embecosm.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2015-03/txt/msg01036.txt.bz2 On 03/30/2015 07:51 PM, Doug Evans wrote: > On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 5:50 AM, Andrew Burgess > wrote: >> Doug, Pedro, >> >> * Pedro Alves [2015-03-26 09:24:27 +0000]: >> >>> On 03/25/2015 11:18 PM, Doug Evans wrote: >>>> On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 at 10:11 AM, Andrew Burgess >>>>> However, as I don't have an actual use for this observer that I can >>>>> post upstream (yet) I don't know if this will be acceptable, but given >>>>> it's a fairly small change I thought I'd try. >> >>> Right. We delete dead code all the time. So it's better to wait until >>> is has a use, because otherwise someone could well end up stumbling on it, >>> noticing it has no uses and decides to send a patch that garbage >>> collects it. >> >> Thanks for looking at my patch, and I understand why you've rejected >> it for now. > > It's easy enough to prevent people errantly spending cycles submitting > a patch to delete such code. If you mean a comment in the code like "don't delete: this will be used by an yet-unsubmitted out of tree port, once it's submitted", I don't agree with that. Should we put a date on the comment? If I read a comment like that saying "2014/09", I'll wonder whether the port will be submitted in the tree soon enough. What about "2013/09"? Or maybe one should bother to look for the right people and ask them if that is maybe dead already? Etc. It's just better to avoid such issues. > OTOH, I'm wondering if a frame-cache-cleared event > is the right one for your use-case. *nod* Without seeing the port it's hard to judge. > I'm guessing this isn't for frame unwinding, > otherwise you could just use the existing mechanism > (e.g., frame_unwind.dealloc_cache). Thanks, Pedro Alves