From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 21518 invoked by alias); 17 Jul 2009 19:19:45 -0000 Received: (qmail 21510 invoked by uid 22791); 17 Jul 2009 19:19:44 -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; Fri, 17 Jul 2009 19:19:36 +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 n6HJHXI4024680; Fri, 17 Jul 2009 15:17:33 -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 n6HJHVGu001410; Fri, 17 Jul 2009 15:17:32 -0400 Received: from opsy.redhat.com (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 n6HJHUAV020854; Fri, 17 Jul 2009 15:17:31 -0400 Received: by opsy.redhat.com (Postfix, from userid 500) id 7D8F5508006; Fri, 17 Jul 2009 13:17:30 -0600 (MDT) To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Cc: Vladimir Prus Subject: Re: Value reference counting References: <20090717184152.GA6863@caradoc.them.org> <20090717190418.GA9041@caradoc.them.org> From: Tom Tromey Reply-To: Tom Tromey Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2009 22:55:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <20090717190418.GA9041@caradoc.them.org> (Daniel Jacobowitz's message of "Fri\, 17 Jul 2009 15\:04\:18 -0400") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.3 (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: 2009-07/txt/msg00438.txt.bz2 >>>>> "Daniel" == Daniel Jacobowitz writes: Daniel> I had a good reason this would leak values for watchpoints, but now I Daniel> can't get it to work out. Still, it makes me nervous. Daniel> free_all_values can have a very long interval. But it looks like Daniel> breakpoint commands always run it, so not unbounded user behavior. Daniel> What about breakpoint conditions? Is anything released and free'd Daniel> during a condition check going to linger until we stop? Good questions all, which I don't have the answer for immediately. I don't think this should block your patch, which looks plainly correct to me. Any other change here can easily be done later. Tom