This is the mail archive of the gdb@sources.redhat.com mailing list for the GDB project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: execute_control_command may not remove its cleanups


Dave,

Ok. I see your point. How about setting old_chain to cleanup_chain
unconditionally at the beginning of the function and doing the cleanups
unconditionally at the end? That way, we're safe against both
scenarios: against doing cleanups prematurely, but also safe against
getting into the function with cleanup_chain null and then freeing
something random at a later point.

FYI, that is one of the ways recommended in the doco:


The first style is try/finally.  Before it exits, your code-block calls
@code{do_cleanups} with the old cleanup chain and thus ensures that your
code-block's cleanups are always performed.  For instance, the following
code-segment avoids a memory leak problem (even when @code{error} is
called and a forced stack unwind occurs) by ensuring that the
@code{xfree} will always be called:

@smallexample
struct cleanup *old = make_cleanup (null_cleanup, 0);
data = xmalloc (sizeof blah);
make_cleanup (xfree, data);
... blah blah ...
do_cleanups (old);
@end smallexample

The main reason why the the code you're studying doesn't match the doco is because it pre-dates that said doco :-(


Andrew


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]