From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 20276 invoked by alias); 23 Apr 2009 21:25:48 -0000 Received: (qmail 20242 invoked by uid 22791); 23 Apr 2009 21:25:47 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx2.redhat.com (HELO mx2.redhat.com) (66.187.237.31) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Thu, 23 Apr 2009 21:25:41 +0000 Received: from int-mx2.corp.redhat.com (int-mx2.corp.redhat.com [172.16.27.26]) by mx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n3NLPaxf031012 for ; Thu, 23 Apr 2009 17:25:36 -0400 Received: from ns3.rdu.redhat.com (ns3.rdu.redhat.com [10.11.255.199]) by int-mx2.corp.redhat.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id n3NLPZik026067; Thu, 23 Apr 2009 17:25:36 -0400 Received: from opsy.redhat.com (vpn-14-41.rdu.redhat.com [10.11.14.41]) by ns3.rdu.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n3NLPYBK026712; Thu, 23 Apr 2009 17:25:35 -0400 Received: by opsy.redhat.com (Postfix, from userid 500) id AADA437829A; Thu, 23 Apr 2009 15:25:33 -0600 (MDT) To: Jan Kratochvil Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [patch] Fix double free on error while inserting the breakpoint References: <20081122214006.GA22076@host0.dyn.jankratochvil.net> <20090423203619.GA31736@host0.dyn.jankratochvil.net> From: Tom Tromey Reply-To: Tom Tromey Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2009 21:25:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <20090423203619.GA31736@host0.dyn.jankratochvil.net> (Jan Kratochvil's message of "Thu\, 23 Apr 2009 22\:36\:19 +0200") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.2 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii 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: 2009-04/txt/msg00667.txt.bz2 >>>>> "Jan" == Jan Kratochvil writes: Tom> I like this but I am unsure whether it is ok to move the call to Tom> update_global_location_list past the call to mention. Jan> As in this case the breakpoint is pending and thus it was created by Jan> set_raw_breakpoint_without_location and so update_global_location_list is Jan> a nop for it. So I do not think it is a problem to move it. Ok, that is convincing :) Jan> 2009-04-23 Jan Kratochvil Jan> Fix double free on error inserting the breakpoint instruction. Jan> * breakpoint.c (create_breakpoints): Move the Jan> update_global_location_list call to ... Jan> (break_command_really): ... here together with the second local call Jan> both unified after all the cleanups. Looks good to me, please check it in. Thanks. Tom