Re: [PATCH v4 11/11] RFC only: compile: Use also inferior munmap

[Jan Kratochvil <jan.kratochvil@redhat.com>]

On Wed, 06 May 2015 17:21:37 +0200, Pedro Alves wrote:
> On 05/03/2015 03:08 PM, Jan Kratochvil wrote:
> > I believe later patches will be needed to introduce full control over keeping
> > vs. discarding the injected module as being discussed in:
> > 	compile: objfiles lifetime UI
> > 	https://sourceware.org/ml/gdb/2015-04/msg00051.html
> > 	Message-ID: <20150429135735.GA16974@host1.jankratochvil.net>
> > This patch at least introduces code which will be needed for the part/cases of
> > really freeing all the resources of an injected module.
> > 
> > It is "RFC only" as given the patch as is it regresses GDB functionality.
> 
> I don't which parts of this would cause regressions;

For example the existing testsuite case - without its change it would
PASS->FAIL.


> it's helpful
> when an RFC points out what is known to be hacky or patch bits that are known
> to need to change.  It's not obvious, at least to me.

One can imagine many cases when the inferior can later reference the injected
object's memory; although I agree for most of the 'print' expressions it will
not happen.  Maybe only the C 'char *' case
	https://sourceware.org/ml/gdb/2015-04/msg00054.html
is the most visible one, C++ has better memory ownership/management in its
objects.


> That said, I skimmed it and it overall looks good.  The stop_registers
> bits looked surprising.  My reaction was that I'd think that would be
> something handled around save_infcall_suspend_state/restore_infcall_suspend_state,
> though it's not clear to me.

This was a minimal change how to make this patch working.  I agree
'stop_registers' (also) looks as a hack to me, I will therefore try to make
some pre/post cleanup patch if we can get rid of 'stop_registers', I have no
idea.


Thanks,
Jan