This is the mail archive of the gdb-patches@sourceware.org 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: [RFA] frame.c (find_frame_sal): Check return value of get_frame_function.

From: Joel Brobecker <brobecker at adacore dot com>
To: Pedro Alves <pedro at codesourcery dot com>
Cc: gdb-patches at sourceware dot org, Michael Snyder <msnyder at vmware dot com>
Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2011 10:38:05 -0700
Subject: Re: [RFA] frame.c (find_frame_sal): Check return value of get_frame_function.
References: <4D719288.6050301@vmware.com> <20110315162609.GM31264@adacore.com> <201103151653.54091.pedro@codesourcery.com>

> It would normally, but in this case, we've just found that
> the next frame is an inlined function call.  Then it
> certainly has debug info?  Otherwise, how would gdb know
> it's an inlined function call?

Indeed, I think you're right. inline_skipped_symbol shouldn't
be returning a NULL symbol, as far as I can tell.  So should
we just add a gdb_assert with a comment explaining why we
expect sym to be non-NULL?

-- 
Joel

Follow-Ups:
- Re: [RFA] frame.c (find_frame_sal): Check return value of get_frame_function.
  - From: Pedro Alves

References:
- [RFA] frame.c (find_frame_sal): Check return value of get_frame_function.
  - From: Michael Snyder
- Re: [RFA] frame.c (find_frame_sal): Check return value of get_frame_function.
  - From: Joel Brobecker
- Re: [RFA] frame.c (find_frame_sal): Check return value of get_frame_function.
  - From: Pedro Alves

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