From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 19084 invoked by alias); 10 Mar 2003 23:38:34 -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 19077 invoked from network); 10 Mar 2003 23:38:34 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO crack.them.org) (65.125.64.184) by 172.16.49.205 with SMTP; 10 Mar 2003 23:38:34 -0000 Received: from nevyn.them.org ([66.93.61.169] ident=mail) by crack.them.org with asmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 18sYjt-0001Tw-00; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 19:39:33 -0600 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian)) id 18sWqV-0003yU-00; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 18:38:15 -0500 Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 23:38:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Klee Dienes Cc: Joel Brobecker , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [RFC/RFA] GDB crash when using command lines due to memory corruption Message-ID: <20030310233814.GA13161@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Klee Dienes , Joel Brobecker , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com References: <20021211173805.GG25575@gnat.com> <8096FEF2-0D32-11D7-9BDD-00039396EEB8@apple.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <8096FEF2-0D32-11D7-9BDD-00039396EEB8@apple.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.1i X-SW-Source: 2003-03/txt/msg00243.txt.bz2 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. Klee, I'm going to approve the breakpoint parts of this patch now. Since this bug really annoyed me, I'm checking them in, too. Would you mind reposting the testsuite patch for approval? -- Daniel Jacobowitz MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer