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: [patch+7.4] reread.exp 7.3->7.4 regression

From: Joel Brobecker <brobecker at adacore dot com>
To: Jan Kratochvil <jan dot kratochvil at redhat dot com>
Cc: gdb-patches at sourceware dot org, Pedro Alves <alves dot ped at gmail dot com>
Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2011 13:54:27 +0400
Subject: Re: [patch+7.4] reread.exp 7.3->7.4 regression
References: <20111218115343.GB22534@host2.jankratochvil.net> <20111219034807.GN21915@adacore.com> <20111219093131.GA3484@host2.jankratochvil.net>

> The freeing is not the only problem.  The same problem applies on the lines
> accessing the elements, those statements can also crash now without this
> patch.  It is just not shown in this crash backtrace.

Ugh, this is really nasty. I know you've delved into this more than
I have, so I am Ok with your proposed initial work around. Others
might have an opinion too. Is it worth labeling all the places that
we ended up modifying? I guess not - they all reference the new
field which is clearly documented as being here to work around
a deficiency in the design.

I think this problem ties us with the problem Tom was trying to
figure out, where BFD opens and closes bfd's without telling us.

-- 
Joel

Follow-Ups:
- Re: [patch+7.4] reread.exp 7.3->7.4 regression
  - From: Jan Kratochvil

References:
- [patch+7.4] reread.exp 7.3->7.4 regression
  - From: Jan Kratochvil
- Re: [patch+7.4] reread.exp 7.3->7.4 regression
  - From: Joel Brobecker
- Re: [patch+7.4] reread.exp 7.3->7.4 regression
  - From: Jan Kratochvil

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