From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 113448 invoked by alias); 8 Feb 2017 12:40:43 -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 113438 invoked by uid 89); 8 Feb 2017 12:40:42 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy= X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Wed, 08 Feb 2017 12:40:41 +0000 Received: from int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.24]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AA3C3C012844; Wed, 8 Feb 2017 12:40:41 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (ovpn04.gateway.prod.ext.ams2.redhat.com [10.39.146.4]) by int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id v18Ceegx012834; Wed, 8 Feb 2017 07:40:40 -0500 Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix usage of inferior_ptid in two thread_alive implementations To: Simon Marchi , gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <20170207212450.2232-1-simon.marchi@ericsson.com> From: Pedro Alves Message-ID: <0322ea0c-ce96-8b7c-5d2d-0efa87ab71ed@redhat.com> Date: Wed, 08 Feb 2017 12:40:00 -0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.4.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20170207212450.2232-1-simon.marchi@ericsson.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2017-02/txt/msg00184.txt.bz2 On 02/07/2017 09:24 PM, Simon Marchi wrote: > While inspecting some target code, I noticed that in these two > implementations of thread_alive, inferior_ptid is referenced directly > instead of using the ptid passed as parameters. I guess that it is > wrong, although I can't really test it in both cases. I can't test either, but it looks right to me. Thanks, Pedro Alves