From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 29180 invoked by alias); 24 Jan 2007 22:08:32 -0000 Received: (qmail 29143 invoked by uid 22791); 24 Jan 2007 22:08:31 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from ug-out-1314.google.com (HELO ug-out-1314.google.com) (66.249.92.171) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Wed, 24 Jan 2007 22:08:24 +0000 Received: by ug-out-1314.google.com with SMTP id 39so741127ugf for ; Wed, 24 Jan 2007 14:08:21 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.66.216.20 with SMTP id o20mr1663025ugg.1169676501591; Wed, 24 Jan 2007 14:08:21 -0800 (PST) Received: from ?192.168.0.11? ( [82.229.199.15]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id i39sm1743613ugd.2007.01.24.14.08.20; Wed, 24 Jan 2007 14:08:21 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: [RFC] varobj deletion after the binary has changed From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Fr=E9d=E9ric?= Riss To: Nick Roberts Cc: Denis PILAT , Vladimir Prus , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com In-Reply-To: <17847.54349.654238.452957@kahikatea.snap.net.nz> References: <45B60056.6030704@st.com> <20070123124457.GA1600@nevyn.them.org> <45B61B41.90509@st.com> <17847.54349.654238.452957@kahikatea.snap.net.nz> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2007 22:08:00 -0000 Message-Id: <1169676493.5160.14.camel@funkylaptop> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.8.1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-IsSubscribed: yes 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 X-SW-Source: 2007-01/txt/msg00512.txt.bz2 Le jeudi 25 janvier 2007 à 10:49 +1300, Nick Roberts a écrit : > > > And what kind of problems does it cause, for the record? I'd expect that > > > attempt of evaluating such expressions will result in value being "", > > > and in_scope="false". Do you get anything worse than that? > > It's a global variable so I don't think it will ever be reported as out > of scope. > > > Yes we are, gdb crashes. > > This is a bug in GDB and how to deal with variable objects when restarting > should be a separate issue. I see the same problem in a CVS snapshot of > 6.2 vintage but not in GDB 6.3 from Fedora Core 5. So unless the problem > disappeared in 6.3 and reasppeared later, which is unlikely, I think Fedora > must have solved it with one of their patches. The problem is I don't know > which one. Just a shot in the dark: did you test with a memory checker like valgrind? The fact that there's no crash doesn't mean that there's no buggy memory access. Fred.