From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 8607 invoked by alias); 12 Dec 2002 17:12:35 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 8589 invoked from network); 12 Dec 2002 17:12:32 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO crack.them.org) (65.125.64.184) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 12 Dec 2002 17:12:32 -0000 Received: from nevyn.them.org ([66.93.61.169] ident=mail) by crack.them.org with asmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 18MYlR-0000xO-00 for ; Thu, 12 Dec 2002 13:12:53 -0600 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian)) id 18MWto-00081U-00 for ; Thu, 12 Dec 2002 12:13:24 -0500 Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 13:03:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [RFC/RFA] GDB crash when using command lines due to memory corruption Message-ID: <20021212171324.GA30822@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com References: <20021211173805.GG25575@gnat.com> <8096FEF2-0D32-11D7-9BDD-00039396EEB8@apple.com> <20021212100406.GK25575@gnat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20021212100406.GK25575@gnat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.1i X-SW-Source: 2002-12/txt/msg00404.txt.bz2 On Thu, Dec 12, 2002 at 11:04:06AM +0100, Joel Brobecker wrote: > > A safer change for 5.3 might be the patch I submitted on October 30th. > > > > http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb-patches/2002-10/msg00586.html > > For the record, this patch fixes a few regressions (apart from the > original problem). With GNAT as the compiler (still 2.8.1 based): > > Before: > > # of expected passes 8305 > # of unexpected failures 47 > # of unexpected successes 10 > # of expected failures 167 > # of untested testcases 3 > # of unsupported tests 2 > > After: > > # of expected passes 8309 > # of unexpected failures 38 > # of unexpected successes 10 > # of expected failures 172 > # of untested testcases 3 > # of unsupported tests 2 > > (thanks Klee for pointing out at your patch) I can't think what in our testsuite could be affected by this. Are you sure they're real changes? Which tests? Also note that both passes and expected failures went up, which is fishy. -- Daniel Jacobowitz MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer