From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <binutils-return-76729-listarch-binutils=sources.redhat.com@sourceware.org>
Received: (qmail 10611 invoked by alias); 16 Aug 2012 20:35:55 -0000
Received: (qmail 10554 invoked by uid 22791); 16 Aug 2012 20:35:55 -0000
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-3.8 required=5.0	tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,KHOP_RCVD_TRUST,KHOP_THREADED,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_YE
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from mail-gh0-f169.google.com (HELO mail-gh0-f169.google.com) (209.85.160.169)    by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Thu, 16 Aug 2012 20:35:41 +0000
Received: by ghrr18 with SMTP id r18so3766696ghr.0        for <binutils@sourceware.org>; Thu, 16 Aug 2012 13:35:40 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.60.8.8 with SMTP id n8mr2169017oea.38.1345149340110; Thu, 16 Aug 2012 13:35:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.76.10.6 with HTTP; Thu, 16 Aug 2012 13:35:40 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <87ipcioepw.fsf@fleche.redhat.com>
References: <87txwknhzj.fsf@fleche.redhat.com>	<20120803160934.GE4430@bubble.grove.modra.org>	<87hasdgv0h.fsf@fleche.redhat.com>	<20120809101540.GA30412@bubble.grove.modra.org>	<CAMe9rOroFkAJgRufuo7kNo=OFSL-JjSVWsoOYxB5r-bkdtfAGA@mail.gmail.com>	<87wr0zsw9h.fsf@fleche.redhat.com>	<20120816135258.GN3947@bubble.grove.modra.org>	<CAMe9rOoA26=LgVuY9UPkuruAoXYUbBZdWKrEN30kpJE23M41qw@mail.gmail.com>	<87393mpy79.fsf@fleche.redhat.com>	<CAMe9rOqUkYs2=CrSiO1Gp=jC5066xfCpS3PAx=VKPAu0oDnSGQ@mail.gmail.com>	<87mx1uoff5.fsf@fleche.redhat.com>	<CAMe9rOrUABR2VU660RfjfwSRN+AAwzdjkvfMm4aHeTxKFLA0GQ@mail.gmail.com>	<87ipcioepw.fsf@fleche.redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2012 20:38:00 -0000
Message-ID: <CAMe9rOpLRwAzwNe8G1QUDwG7gCpV7BEi_QF_vmgr5Tf8o+p=JQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/5] remove deleted BFDs from the archive cache
From: "H.J. Lu" <hjl.tools@gmail.com>
To: Tom Tromey <tromey@redhat.com>
Cc: Binutils Development <binutils@sourceware.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
X-IsSubscribed: yes
Mailing-List: contact binutils-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <binutils.sourceware.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:binutils-subscribe@sourceware.org>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils/>
List-Post: <mailto:binutils@sourceware.org>
List-Help: <mailto:binutils-help@sourceware.org>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: binutils-owner@sourceware.org
X-SW-Source: 2012-08/txt/msg00305.txt.bz2

On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 11:48 AM, Tom Tromey <tromey@redhat.com> wrote:
> HJ> Do you have testcases for those problems?
>
> Just running valgrind using a test program.
>
> Tom> If you mean reverting the patches, I don't agree with it, but that is up
> Tom> to you.
>
> HJ> I don't think it is a bad idea.
>
> Here's a reversion patch.
> I couldn't find a ChangeLog for one of the patches, the one Nick
> committed.
>
> I'll open some bugs.
>
> If you check this in, please let me know so I can revert the gdb patch.
> Thanks.
>
> Tom
>
> 2012-08-16  Tom Tromey  <tromey@redhat.com>
>
>         * archive.c, libbfd-in.h, libbfd.h, opncls.c: Revert patches
>         relating to archive handling:
>         2012-08-16  Tom Tromey  <tromey@redhat.com>
>         2012-08-09  Alan Modra  <amodra@gmail.com>
>                     Tom Tromey  <tromey@redhat.com>
>

I checked in a testcase for

http://www.sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14481

If we revert it now, we get a regression.


-- 
H.J.