From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 30162 invoked by alias); 16 Aug 2012 18:45:09 -0000 Received: (qmail 30027 invoked by uid 22791); 16 Aug 2012 18:45:06 -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-vb0-f41.google.com (HELO mail-vb0-f41.google.com) (209.85.212.41) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Thu, 16 Aug 2012 18:44:48 +0000 Received: by vbkv13 with SMTP id v13so3067741vbk.0 for ; Thu, 16 Aug 2012 11:44:47 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.52.17.75 with SMTP id m11mr820604vdd.106.1345142687625; Thu, 16 Aug 2012 11:44:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.58.234.39 with HTTP; Thu, 16 Aug 2012 11:44:47 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <87mx1uoff5.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> <87wr0zsw9h.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> <20120816135258.GN3947@bubble.grove.modra.org> <87393mpy79.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> <87mx1uoff5.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2012 18:49:00 -0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/5] remove deleted BFDs from the archive cache From: "H.J. Lu" To: Tom Tromey Cc: Binutils Development 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: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: binutils-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2012-08/txt/msg00301.txt.bz2 On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 11:33 AM, Tom Tromey wrote: >>>>>> "HJ" == H J Lu writes: > > HJ> The original codes were written in such a way to properly handle > HJ> archive operation. > > I don't agree. The original codes were inconsistent in what they did, > presumably because BFD gave no guidance as to what was correct. > > HJ> The only missing part was to properly handle the member cache > HJ> pointer. > > BFD also leaked the archive member hash tables. Do you have testcases for those problems? > HJ> I think we should open a new bug to track the original problem with > HJ> a testcase and to see if there is a less intrusive way to fix it > HJ> instead making major changes to archive handling codes. > > If you mean reverting the patches, I don't agree with it, but that is up > to you. > I don't think it is a bad idea. One issue I have with http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils/2012-08/msg00170.html is there is no testcase to verify that it fixes any problems. We can always put them back in after addressing all the issues. Thanks. -- H.J.