From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 3611 invoked by alias); 21 Sep 2002 00:16:02 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 3579 invoked from network); 21 Sep 2002 00:15:59 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO localhost.redhat.com) (216.138.202.10) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 21 Sep 2002 00:15:59 -0000 Received: from ges.redhat.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C7B303D34; Fri, 20 Sep 2002 20:15:56 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <3D8BBA3C.1080306@ges.redhat.com> Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2002 17:16:00 -0000 From: Andrew Cagney User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; NetBSD macppc; en-US; rv:1.0.0) Gecko/20020824 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Daniel Jacobowitz , David Carlton , Kevin Buettner Cc: gdb Subject: Re: xmmalloc? References: <20020920231602.GA4807@nevyn.them.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2002-09/txt/msg00332.txt.bz2 > On Fri, Sep 20, 2002 at 03:55:14PM -0700, David Carlton wrote: > >> Does GDB currently use xmmalloc in any consistent way? When writing >> functions that might call xmalloc, should I try to write versions that >> call xmmalloc instead and try to find an appropriate md to pass to >> them? If I don't do that but instead just use xmalloc, will anything >> bad happen? In particular, am I opening up myself to any new >> possible memory leaks, other than the ones that are, of course, always >> possible when calling xmalloc? >> >> Any background info on this would be appreciated. > > > I get the distinct impression that uses of mmalloc have started to > rot... > > If this is not the case, could someone please summarize the advantages? > Otherwise, should we just remove it entirely? The offical line is that ``we're'' removing it entirely. The ARI says ``GDB is trying to eliminate the [x]mmalloc() family.'' so it must be true ... :-^ (No I don't remember exactly when this was discusssed. Its' one of those things that was drummed into me from long long ago :-) It would mean that GDB could no longer be compiled to pull the ``use mmap to save sections trick'' but I gather from the discussion (I don't remember) that this was acceptable. Andrew