This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [PATCH] gdb: New frame_cache_cleared observer.
- From: Pedro Alves <palves at redhat dot com>
- To: Doug Evans <dje at google dot com>, Andrew Burgess <andrew dot burgess at embecosm dot com>
- Cc: gdb-patches <gdb-patches at sourceware dot org>
- Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2015 13:08:01 +0100
- 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> <20150326125012 dot GB11596 at embecosm dot com> <CADPb22R7=Y_aeqaMwBqyfa+BcxT_JadGNGrtFirQkuh-2PfS5w at mail dot gmail dot com>
On 03/30/2015 07:51 PM, Doug Evans wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 5:50 AM, Andrew Burgess
> <email@example.com> wrote:
>> Doug, Pedro,
>> * Pedro Alves <firstname.lastname@example.org> [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
>>>>> 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.
> It's easy enough to prevent people errantly spending cycles submitting
> a patch to delete such code.
If you mean a comment in the code like "don't delete: this will be
used by an yet-unsubmitted out of tree port, once it's submitted",
I don't agree with that. Should we put a date on the comment? If
I read a comment like that saying "2014/09", I'll wonder whether
the port will be submitted in the tree soon enough. What about
"2013/09"? Or maybe one should bother to look for the right people
and ask them if that is maybe dead already? Etc. It's just better to
avoid such issues.
> OTOH, I'm wondering if a frame-cache-cleared event
> is the right one for your use-case.
*nod* Without seeing the port it's hard to judge.
> I'm guessing this isn't for frame unwinding,
> otherwise you could just use the existing mechanism
> (e.g., frame_unwind.dealloc_cache).