This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [PATCH] gdb: New frame_cache_cleared observer.
- From: Andrew Burgess <andrew dot burgess at embecosm dot com>
- To: Pedro Alves <palves at redhat dot com>, Doug Evans <dje at google dot com>
- Cc: gdb-patches <gdb-patches at sourceware dot org>
- Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2015 12:50:12 +0000
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] gdb: New frame_cache_cleared observer.
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <1427303468-17834-1-git-send-email-andrew dot burgess at embecosm dot com> <CADPb22TsxSy8d8dstV5HPz6gU-Nbf=sKoyVXFHcR5VNTdXB3Zg at mail dot gmail dot com> <5513D04B dot 1070602 at redhat dot com>
* Pedro Alves <email@example.com> [2015-03-26 09:24:27 +0000]:
> On 03/25/2015 11:18 PM, Doug Evans wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 at 10:11 AM, Andrew Burgess
> > <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> >> This adds a new observer for the frame cache cleared event.
> >> While working on a new gdb port I found that I wanted to cache machine
> >> state that was gathered as part of the register read process. The
> >> most appropriate time to discard this cached information is when the
> >> frame cache is flushed.
> >> However, as I don't have an actual use for this observer that I can
> >> post upstream (yet) I don't know if this will be acceptable, but given
> >> it's a fairly small change I thought I'd try.
> Right. We delete dead code all the time. So it's better to wait until
> is has a use, because otherwise someone could well end up stumbling on it,
> noticing it has no uses and decides to send a patch that garbage
> collects it.
Thanks for looking at my patch, and I understand why you've rejected
it for now.
I do have one followup: as far as I can tell the observers
register_changed, inferior_call_pre, and inferior_call_post are only
used by the python bindings to make the events available in python.
As far as I can tell these event bindings are only used within the
... and a question: If I made frame_cache_cleared a python accessible
event, and added a test would this be sufficient to keep the code
Thanks for your time,
 I could easily be wrong!