From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-patches-return-50377-listarch-gdb-patches=sources.redhat.com@sourceware.org>
Received: (qmail 18827 invoked by alias); 18 Aug 2007 00:20:26 -0000
Received: (qmail 18526 invoked by uid 22791); 18 Aug 2007 00:20:24 -0000
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from a.mail.sonic.net (HELO a.mail.sonic.net) (64.142.16.245)     by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Sat, 18 Aug 2007 00:20:23 +0000
Received: from webmail.sonic.net (b.webmail.sonic.net [64.142.100.148]) 	by a.mail.sonic.net (8.13.8.Beta0-Sonic/8.13.7) with ESMTP id l7I0KJNs008841; 	Fri, 17 Aug 2007 17:20:19 -0700
Received: from 12.7.175.2         (SquirrelMail authenticated user msnyder)         by webmail.sonic.net with HTTP;         Fri, 17 Aug 2007 17:20:19 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <9068.12.7.175.2.1187396419.squirrel@webmail.sonic.net>
In-Reply-To: <16770.12.7.175.2.1187044033.squirrel@webmail.sonic.net>
References: <5638.12.7.175.2.1186784359.squirrel@webmail.sonic.net>     <m3ps1rusrx.fsf@codesourcery.com>     <16770.12.7.175.2.1187044033.squirrel@webmail.sonic.net>
Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2007 00:20:00 -0000
Subject: Re: [PATCH] stack.c, memory leak (no-effect code?)
From: msnyder@sonic.net
To: msnyder@sonic.net
Cc: "Jim Blandy" <jimb@codesourcery.com>, gdb-patches@sourceware.org
User-Agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.9a
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gdb-patches.sourceware.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gdb-patches-subscribe@sourceware.org>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gdb-patches@sourceware.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org
X-SW-Source: 2007-08/txt/msg00350.txt.bz2

>>
>> msnyder@sonic.net writes:
>>> This patch is to fix a memory leak, but while you're looking at it...
>>> does it seem to you that these two blocks have any effect?
>>>
>>> [Sorry if I posted this before, I've been searching for it...]
>>
>> You did post something very much like this, but I recall that the
>> blocks in question in the older post really didn't have any effect.
>> These at least set funname.
>>
>> I'm kind of surprised that they don't set funname to demangled when
>> it's non-NULL.
>
> OK, how about the patch itself?

So, checking in the patch, ignoring the possibility of dead code.