From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 26204 invoked by alias); 16 Jul 2013 20:33:55 -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 26195 invoked by uid 89); 16 Jul 2013 20:33:55 -0000 X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-4.8 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_05,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_W,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_WL,RDNS_NONE,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS autolearn=no version=3.3.1 Received: from Unknown (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.84/v0.84-167-ge50287c) with ESMTP; Tue, 16 Jul 2013 20:33:55 +0000 Received: from int-mx12.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx12.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.25]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r6GKXiYi017071 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Tue, 16 Jul 2013 16:33:45 -0400 Received: from barimba (ovpn-113-128.phx2.redhat.com [10.3.113.128]) by int-mx12.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r6GKXfgB011792 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Tue, 16 Jul 2013 16:33:42 -0400 From: Tom Tromey To: Joel Brobecker Cc: Pedro Alves , gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: RFC: introduce scoped cleanups References: <87li7ohtiu.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> <87ppw8qlgl.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> <20130531061135.GA12363@adacore.com> <87obbrp2hg.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> <51A8CC81.9070509@redhat.com> <8738t2q4o2.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> <20130603060716.GC12363@adacore.com> <87wqq8ih9u.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2013 20:33:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <87wqq8ih9u.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> (Tom Tromey's message of "Wed, 05 Jun 2013 11:44:45 -0600") Message-ID: <874nbujlcq.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-SW-Source: 2013-07/txt/msg00375.txt.bz2 Joel> Regardless of the above, I like the idea of performing the cleanups Joel> on an obstack; fast and yet a little more resilient to programming Joel> errors. Not sure if that would be something easy to implement or not, Joel> though. Tom> It ought to be easy. I will look into it. I think it is easy to implement. And, I think I've convinced myself that it is safe. But it seems to me that we could keep a freelist instead -- this is much more obviously safe, and also, I think, reasonably fast in most cases. So I think I'm more inclined to take this approach instead. Tom