From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 3702 invoked by alias); 5 Oct 2006 21:51:55 -0000 Received: (qmail 3686 invoked by uid 22791); 5 Oct 2006 21:51:55 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx2.palmsource.com (HELO mx2.palmsource.com) (12.7.175.14) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Thu, 05 Oct 2006 21:51:50 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.domain.tld (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1A75525E57; Thu, 5 Oct 2006 14:51:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx2.palmsource.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mx2.palmsource.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 13417-02-35; Thu, 5 Oct 2006 14:51:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ussunex01.palmsource.com (unknown [192.168.101.9]) by mx2.palmsource.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E23C825EA3; Thu, 5 Oct 2006 14:49:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from 192.168.92.75 ([192.168.92.75]) by ussunex01.palmsource.com ([192.168.101.9]) via Exchange Front-End Server owa.palmsource.com ([10.0.20.17]) with Microsoft Exchange Server HTTP-DAV ; Thu, 5 Oct 2006 21:49:56 +0000 Received: from svmsnyderlnx by owa.palmsource.com; 05 Oct 2006 14:49:56 -0700 Subject: Ping, Re: Infinite backtrace on (eg.) ARM From: Michael Snyder To: Daniel Jacobowitz Cc: GDB Patches ML In-Reply-To: <1158951393.22863.87.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <1158889724.22863.41.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20060922025908.GA13241@nevyn.them.org> <1158951393.22863.87.camel@localhost.localdomain> Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Thu, 05 Oct 2006 21:51:00 -0000 Message-Id: <1160084996.9761.93.camel@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.4.1 X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2006-10/txt/msg00037.txt.bz2 On Fri, 2006-09-22 at 11:56 -0700, Michael Snyder wrote: > On Thu, 2006-09-21 at 22:59 -0400, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > > The second patch had some points of disagreement, but I think Mark and > > I more or less agreed on the first one before I ran out of time to work > > on it (I'll be back real soon, hopefully next week, to those), and the > > third could probably be gotten into acceptable shape readily once the > > first is in. > > OK, I get it. > > And actually, the 3rd one works pretty well for me by itself > (with minor tweaking). > > Would you be willing to see it go in that way, just to get > something in there to handle the problem? And put the other > parts in at your leisure? > > I'll even do it for you. ;-) Ping, Daniel? I was offering to do the work for you, of isolating and committing the 3rd part of the patch. This would stop the infinite backtrace behavior, and would not be incompatible with what you intend when you get around to finishing the work. Michael