This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [unladen-swallow] Re: [RFA] Add interface for registering JITed code
- From: Reid Kleckner <rnk at google dot com>
- To: tromey at redhat dot com
- Cc: Reid Kleckner <rnk at mit dot edu>, unladen-swallow at googlegroups dot com, gdb-patches at sourceware dot org
- Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2009 16:12:13 -0700
- Subject: Re: [unladen-swallow] Re: [RFA] Add interface for registering JITed code
- References: <9a9942200907221615o570e749fh5cb186c1600f159c@mail.gmail.com> <m3vdlaryq5.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> <200907301501.17812.thiago.bauermann@gmail.com> <200907311201.28986.thiago.bauermann@gmail.com> <9a9942200907311117r2f5363f8ufde734ce2bbf721a@mail.gmail.com> <m3hbwai4by.fsf@fleche.redhat.com>
On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 12:27 PM, Tom Tromey<tromey@redhat.com> wrote:
>
>
>>>>>> "Reid" == Reid Kleckner <rnk@mit.edu> writes:
>
> Reid> Here's an updated patch. ?What else needs to be dealt with?
>
> Nothing. ?I think this is ok.
>
> I read it a few more times and nothing popped out at me.
Is it OK if Doug commits it then?
> Reid> + ? ? ?/* Hack to work around the fact that BFD does not take ownership of the
> Reid> + ? ? ? ? memory for files allocated in memory. ?*/
> Reid> + ? ? ?if (objfile->obfd->flags & BFD_IN_MEMORY)
> Reid> + ? ? ? ?bim = (struct bfd_in_memory *) objfile->obfd->iostream;
>
> What is the status of the BFD patch to fix this?
Doug has permission to remove the leak from BFD, so I think I'll
remove this hack from my patch to reduce churn.
Thanks,
Reid