This is the mail archive of the gdb-patches@sourceware.org mailing list for the GDB project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: [PATCH] Place displaced step data directly in inferior structure

From: Philippe Waroquiers <philippe dot waroquiers at skynet dot be>
To: Simon Marchi <simon dot marchi at ericsson dot com>, Pedro Alves <palves at redhat dot com>, "gdb-patches at sourceware dot org" <gdb-patches at sourceware dot org>
Cc: "dblaikie at gmail dot com" <dblaikie at gmail dot com>
Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2018 14:22:45 +0100
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Place displaced step data directly in inferior structure
References: <20181123182429.9045-1-simon.marchi@ericsson.com> <ab298d38-3e4f-5acc-ed8c-8147deb6bf72@redhat.com> <ac328109-21e9-dc20-a7e9-d064da3ca63f@ericsson.com> <bf11d64a-816c-06a0-da99-d9e3c49ced17@ericsson.com>

On Fri, 2018-11-23 at 21:05 +0000, Simon Marchi wrote:
> At the same time, I changed step_saved_copy to be a gdb::byte_vector, so
> it is automatically freed on destruction (which should plug the leak
> reported here [1]).
> 
> [1] https://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2018-11/msg00202.html
Re-tested with your patch+valgrind, and the leak is effectively fixed.

The re-testing shown that the 'open_source_file' leak was re-introduced
(which I re-fixed as under the obvious rule) and some definitely leaked
blocks in linespec.c.

I will investigate ...

Philippe

References:
- [PATCH] Place displaced step data directly in inferior structure
  - From: Simon Marchi
- Re: [PATCH] Place displaced step data directly in inferior structure
  - From: Pedro Alves
- Re: [PATCH] Place displaced step data directly in inferior structure
  - From: Simon Marchi
- Re: [PATCH] Place displaced step data directly in inferior structure
  - From: Simon Marchi

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]