Re: [PATCH 3/5] remove deleted BFDs from the archive cache

["H.J. Lu" <hjl dot tools at gmail dot com>]

On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 11:33 AM, Tom Tromey <tromey@redhat.com> wrote:
>>>>>> "HJ" == H J Lu <hjl.tools@gmail.com> 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.