From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 19020 invoked by alias); 25 Sep 2013 20:11:58 -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 19009 invoked by uid 89); 25 Sep 2013 20:11:57 -0000 Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Wed, 25 Sep 2013 20:11:57 +0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-3.7 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Received: from int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.11]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r8PKBsQE023145 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Wed, 25 Sep 2013 16:11:54 -0400 Received: from barimba (ovpn-113-63.phx2.redhat.com [10.3.113.63]) by int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id r8PKBr4v006992 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Wed, 25 Sep 2013 16:11:54 -0400 From: Tom Tromey To: Doug Evans Cc: gdb-patches Subject: Re: [RFA] fix ref counting of inferior_to_inferior_object References: <87hadbmfsr.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> <87ob7giwgd.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2013 20:11:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: (Doug Evans's message of "Wed, 25 Sep 2013 12:29:55 -0700") Message-ID: <87bo3girue.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: 2013-09/txt/msg00906.txt.bz2 Doug> Not that you disagree or anything, but IWBN to remove whim from Doug> the equation. Consistency Is Good, and all that. I'm not so sure. I think consistency is one good among many, and there is a cost to enforcing these sorts of rules. This is particularly true if the code is already not consistent. Unless maybe you are volunteering to change it all. Doug> If we're going to store a pointer to the Python object in a gdb Doug> registry, why not have a convention that gdb owns a reference? Doug> [could be missing something of course] I don't think I have an example offhand. I suppose it is potentially a problem in a case where there are many such objects and we don't want to retain them all. But those cases are probably rare, maybe non-existent in the current code. So maybe it is ok. Tom