From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 15983 invoked by alias); 9 Feb 2004 21:20:36 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 15894 invoked from network); 9 Feb 2004 21:20:34 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hawaii.kealia.com) (209.3.10.89) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 9 Feb 2004 21:20:35 -0000 Received: by hawaii.kealia.com (Postfix, from userid 2049) id 3400EE1EB; Mon, 9 Feb 2004 13:15:28 -0800 (PST) To: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: Avoid obstack_free in cp-namespace.c References: <20040209211010.GA25073@nevyn.them.org> From: David Carlton Date: Mon, 09 Feb 2004 21:20:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <20040209211010.GA25073@nevyn.them.org> (Daniel Jacobowitz's message of "Mon, 9 Feb 2004 16:10:10 -0500") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.1002 (Gnus v5.10.2) XEmacs/21.4 (Reasonable Discussion, linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-SW-Source: 2004-02/txt/msg00209.txt.bz2 On Mon, 9 Feb 2004 16:10:10 -0500, Daniel Jacobowitz said: > What do you think of this change? It makes the assumption that > lookup_block_symbol will not allocate anything on the objfile > obstack, which is no longer true in a patch I'm testing. I really > dislike obstack_free for this exact reason. Makes sense to me. David Carlton carlton@kealia.com