From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 26039 invoked by alias); 20 Jul 2011 15:21:45 -0000 Received: (qmail 25911 invoked by uid 22791); 20 Jul 2011 15:21:44 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-7.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Wed, 20 Jul 2011 15:21:06 +0000 Received: from int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.12]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p6KFKxBS022308 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Wed, 20 Jul 2011 11:20:59 -0400 Received: from ns3.rdu.redhat.com (ns3.rdu.redhat.com [10.11.255.199]) by int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id p6KFKwSp026750; Wed, 20 Jul 2011 11:20:59 -0400 Received: from barimba (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.9.1]) by ns3.rdu.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id p6KFKvxx030126; Wed, 20 Jul 2011 11:20:57 -0400 From: Tom Tromey To: Pedro Alves Cc: pmuldoon@redhat.com, gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [rfc] Prompt memory management/cleanups References: <201107201543.12940.pedro@codesourcery.com> <201107201612.23708.pedro@codesourcery.com> Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2011 15:45:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <201107201612.23708.pedro@codesourcery.com> (Pedro Alves's message of "Wed, 20 Jul 2011 16:12:23 +0100") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.0.50 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain 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 X-SW-Source: 2011-07/txt/msg00539.txt.bz2 >>>>> "Pedro" == Pedro Alves writes: Pedro> You've asked for comments on the API, and IMO this makes for Pedro> a weird API, because the caller of set_prompt needs to know Pedro> whether set_prompt will take ownership of the pointer or not Pedro> depending on where the pointer came from. I haven't looked Pedro> at the callers -- that's why I asked what would need to Pedro> change. :-) The problem case is set_prompt(get_prompt()), but here the prompt code already owns the pointer. I guess it is a little weird, but it still falls under the general rule of "you have to call get_prompt again to get the prompt after set_prompt". Tom