From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 23714 invoked by alias); 11 Feb 2003 09:38:34 -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 23704 invoked from network); 11 Feb 2003 09:38:28 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO takamaka.act-europe.fr) (212.157.227.139) by 172.16.49.205 with SMTP; 11 Feb 2003 09:38:28 -0000 Received: by takamaka.act-europe.fr (Postfix, from userid 507) id 84653D34AE; Tue, 11 Feb 2003 10:38:27 +0100 (CET) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 09:38:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [RFA] (ping) GDB crash when using command lines due to memory corruption Message-ID: <20030211093827.GG1230@gnat.com> References: <20021211173805.GG25575@gnat.com> <8096FEF2-0D32-11D7-9BDD-00039396EEB8@apple.com> <20030113032110.GQ30359@gnat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20030113032110.GQ30359@gnat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i X-SW-Source: 2003-02/txt/msg00270.txt.bz2 > There is a patch that was submitted on Oct 30th 2002 but hasn't been > reviewed despite the fact that it addresses a GDB crash. It also > expands break.exp to test for this. Second ping... > On Wed, Dec 11, 2002 at 01:00:58PM -0500, Klee Dienes 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 > > > > Rather than deal with sharing the command-line structure, I just > > updated bpstat_copy to match its comment, and do a deep copy of the > > command lines as well as the value. I don't really have a strong > > opinion about copying the command lines vs. managing them the way Joel > > proposes, although my patch does have the argument of simplicity going > > for it. On the other hand, if/when we go to a more sophistiated > > command-line evaluator, we'll probably want the command body to be some > > opaque and externally managed structure anyway. > > > > Whichever patch we end up taking, though, we should be sure to update > > the comment in bpstat_copy and add my proposed change to the test suite. Thanks, -- Joel