From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 2654 invoked by alias); 7 Jan 2004 22:41:47 -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 2643 invoked from network); 7 Jan 2004 22:41:46 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO nevyn.them.org) (66.93.172.17) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 7 Jan 2004 22:41:46 -0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 4.30 #1 (Debian)) id 1AeMN0-0000bi-CH for ; Wed, 07 Jan 2004 17:41:46 -0500 Date: Wed, 07 Jan 2004 22:41:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] Make gdb1476.exp more robust Message-ID: <20040107224146.GA2280@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com References: <200401072213.i07MDiD1014224@elgar.kettenis.dyndns.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200401072213.i07MDiD1014224@elgar.kettenis.dyndns.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.1i X-SW-Source: 2004-01/txt/msg00181.txt.bz2 On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 11:13:44PM +0100, Mark Kettenis wrote: > Peter Schauer pointed out to me that excuting code at address 0 might > have ill effects on targets that don't have an MMU. He suggested > testing whether we could read from that address, and only run the > tests if we can't. I suppose that's some incentive for me to fix gdbserver... it currently allows invalid reads. > +# If we can examine what's at memory address 0, it is possible that we > +# could also execute it. This could pobably make us run away, Typo, probably. -- Daniel Jacobowitz MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer