From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 20036 invoked by alias); 27 Feb 2008 00:37:55 -0000 Received: (qmail 20024 invoked by uid 22791); 27 Feb 2008 00:37:52 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from bluesmobile.specifix.com (HELO bluesmobile.specifix.com) (216.129.118.140) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Wed, 27 Feb 2008 00:37:34 +0000 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (bluesmobile.specifix.com [216.129.118.140]) by bluesmobile.specifix.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5DBCB3BD3B; Tue, 26 Feb 2008 16:37:33 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: SIGSEGV on gdb 6.7* From: Michael Snyder To: Daniel Jacobowitz Cc: Greg Law , gdb-patches@sourceware.org In-Reply-To: <20080227002617.GA19479@caradoc.them.org> References: <47A77A6C.8050007@undo-software.com> <1204066487.19253.346.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20080227002617.GA19479@caradoc.them.org> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2008 00:43:00 -0000 Message-Id: <1204072653.19253.371.camel@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.10.3 (2.10.3-7.fc7) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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: 2008-02/txt/msg00418.txt.bz2 On Tue, 2008-02-26 at 19:26 -0500, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 02:54:47PM -0800, Michael Snyder wrote: > > That said -- I agree with Daniel. I can see where > > flushing the register cache and flushing the frame cache > > are two things that should probably always be done at > > the same time -- but I'm worried about the extra overhead > > that this patch introduces. We call registers_changed > > A LOT, and in doing so we assume that it has a very > > low overhead. > > If the registers have changed, how can the frame cache still possibly > be valid? No argument -- it can't. Are you swinging around toward wanting to accept this patch? ;-)