From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from simark.ca by simark.ca with LMTP id bAhhMo0vlGCiKgAAWB0awg (envelope-from ) for ; Thu, 06 May 2021 14:03:57 -0400 Received: by simark.ca (Postfix, from userid 112) id C0F371F11C; Thu, 6 May 2021 14:03:57 -0400 (EDT) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on simark.ca X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.1 required=5.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from sourceware.org (server2.sourceware.org [8.43.85.97]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by simark.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3627C1E54D for ; Thu, 6 May 2021 14:03:57 -0400 (EDT) Received: from server2.sourceware.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9EEE9388F00C; Thu, 6 May 2021 18:03:56 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 9EEE9388F00C DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sourceware.org; s=default; t=1620324236; bh=qJ9hMs1LxGf/fD1SBhcuXDGoEw8H259x0EGICdWne8k=; h=Subject:To:References:Date:In-Reply-To:List-Id:List-Unsubscribe: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help:List-Subscribe:From:Reply-To:Cc: From; b=UWvSD6BBWcXh9gj2pkOjdl4RLgH1DOr/Ws2ZzFoA5oDx5BH7vTGzWdXM2bg3bt1Fs gkIkCxrHX7KYQjLkApUXc0w/R2qJqB7BClBz7pZSx8E4zkZSqTOMBy6eYqk4dTTpSn JvuIVNOAs99fM72ypp9HbzDoK/xr1KegJd0uRlF0= Received: from smtp.polymtl.ca (smtp.polymtl.ca [132.207.4.11]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CB412388CC18 for ; Thu, 6 May 2021 18:03:53 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 sourceware.org CB412388CC18 Received: from simark.ca (simark.ca [158.69.221.121]) (authenticated bits=0) by smtp.polymtl.ca (8.14.7/8.14.7) with ESMTP id 146I3loO010903 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Thu, 6 May 2021 14:03:51 -0400 DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp.polymtl.ca 146I3loO010903 Received: from [10.0.0.11] (192-222-157-6.qc.cable.ebox.net [192.222.157.6]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by simark.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 9499E1E54D; Thu, 6 May 2021 14:03:46 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: [PATCH] debuginfod-support.c: Use long-lived debuginfod_client To: Aaron Merey , "Frank Ch. Eigler" References: <20210430235735.1371915-1-amerey@redhat.com> <87eeek1y07.fsf@redhat.com> Message-ID: Date: Thu, 6 May 2021 14:03:46 -0400 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.7.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Poly-FromMTA: (simark.ca [158.69.221.121]) at Thu, 6 May 2021 18:03:47 +0000 X-BeenThere: gdb-patches@sourceware.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Gdb-patches mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , From: Simon Marchi via Gdb-patches Reply-To: Simon Marchi Cc: Tom Tromey , gdb-patches@sourceware.org Errors-To: gdb-patches-bounces@sourceware.org Sender: "Gdb-patches" On 2021-05-06 1:27 p.m., Aaron Merey via Gdb-patches wrote: > On Wed, May 5, 2021 at 8:56 PM Frank Ch. Eigler via Gdb-patches > wrote: >>> Will there ever be a need to finalize this object? Like, shut it down >>> cleanly in some way? >> >> Nope (except perhaps if running gdb under valgrind?). > > Running gdb under valgrind appears to work properly and no > debuginfod-related leaks are reported. > > If there aren't any other concerns then I will merge this patch with > Tom's suggestion to define global_client in debuginfod_init() included. That might be because Valgrind does not show the memory that is still allocated at program exit that is still reachable by a global variable. I think it would still be a good idea to properly close the client at exit. Not because the memory leak is a concern, but because we shouldn't assume what closing a debuginfod client (current or future) does or does not do, so we shouldn't assume that we can get away without calling debuginfo_end. A debuginfod client could eventually maintain some temporary files that need to be deleted when closing in order not to litter /tmp, some cache files need to be flushed, etc. Simon