From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 31408 invoked by alias); 25 Apr 2019 18:08:27 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org Received: (qmail 31399 invoked by uid 89); 25 Apr 2019 18:08:27 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 spammy=HX-Languages-Length:671, noticed X-HELO: mail-wr1-f65.google.com Received: from mail-wr1-f65.google.com (HELO mail-wr1-f65.google.com) (209.85.221.65) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Thu, 25 Apr 2019 18:08:26 +0000 Received: by mail-wr1-f65.google.com with SMTP id t17so596233wrw.13 for ; Thu, 25 Apr 2019 11:08:26 -0700 (PDT) Return-Path: Received: from ?IPv6:2001:8a0:f913:f700:4c97:6d52:2cea:997b? ([2001:8a0:f913:f700:4c97:6d52:2cea:997b]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id z7sm16888297wml.40.2019.04.25.11.08.23 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=AEAD-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 25 Apr 2019 11:08:24 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5] More exception-handling improvements To: Tom Tromey , gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <20190425165256.31226-1-tromey@adacore.com> From: Pedro Alves Message-ID: Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2019 18:08:00 -0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.2.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20190425165256.31226-1-tromey@adacore.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2019-04/txt/msg00544.txt.bz2 On 4/25/19 5:52 PM, Tom Tromey wrote: > Philippe noticed a memory leak with the new exception-handling code, > and when I debugged it, I realized that the current code is relying on > undefined behavior: namely, calling longjmp in a context where a > destructor would normally run. > > This series fixes these problems, and provides some other improvements > as well. > > Let me know what you think. Tested on x86-64 Fedora 29. I think patches #1-#4 look fine. I'd remove the explicit "struct"s throughout while at it, but no biggie. Not so clear on patch #5 -- see direct reply to that one. Thanks, Pedro Alves