From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 22384 invoked by alias); 8 Mar 2004 17:41:25 -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 22376 invoked from network); 8 Mar 2004 17:41:23 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO nevyn.them.org) (66.93.172.17) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 8 Mar 2004 17:41:23 -0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 4.30 #1 (Debian)) id 1B0Okk-0005l3-SM; Mon, 08 Mar 2004 12:41:22 -0500 Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2004 00:09:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Andrew Cagney , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [rfa/mips] Stop backtraces when we've lost the PC Message-ID: <20040308174122.GA22096@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Andrew Cagney , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com References: <20040306231743.GA9379@nevyn.them.org> <404BC4B2.7000100@gnu.org> <20040308032324.GA1325@nevyn.them.org> <20040308154814.GA17012@nevyn.them.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20040308154814.GA17012@nevyn.them.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.1i X-SW-Source: 2004-03/txt/msg00161.txt.bz2 On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 10:48:14AM -0500, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > I believe the attached patch is safe in a superset of circumstances to > where the previous code was safe. It causes us to select the correct > .pdr entry in this circumstance. What do you think of it? The patch is not safe; testing showed regressions in break.exp and other places. I think the theory is sound, but I need to analyze the regressions to figure out what's going on. Sorry 'bout that. -- Daniel Jacobowitz MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 22384 invoked by alias); 8 Mar 2004 17:41:25 -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 22376 invoked from network); 8 Mar 2004 17:41:23 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO nevyn.them.org) (66.93.172.17) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 8 Mar 2004 17:41:23 -0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 4.30 #1 (Debian)) id 1B0Okk-0005l3-SM; Mon, 08 Mar 2004 12:41:22 -0500 Date: Mon, 08 Mar 2004 17:41:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Andrew Cagney , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [rfa/mips] Stop backtraces when we've lost the PC Message-ID: <20040308174122.GA22096@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Andrew Cagney , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com References: <20040306231743.GA9379@nevyn.them.org> <404BC4B2.7000100@gnu.org> <20040308032324.GA1325@nevyn.them.org> <20040308154814.GA17012@nevyn.them.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20040308154814.GA17012@nevyn.them.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.1i X-SW-Source: 2004-03.o/txt/msg00161.txt Message-ID: <20040308174100.Gy8OXXxPX72PJ0vGuGwScAF8di1bkJlknPeTyc_htBo@z> On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 10:48:14AM -0500, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > I believe the attached patch is safe in a superset of circumstances to > where the previous code was safe. It causes us to select the correct > .pdr entry in this circumstance. What do you think of it? The patch is not safe; testing showed regressions in break.exp and other places. I think the theory is sound, but I need to analyze the regressions to figure out what's going on. Sorry 'bout that. -- Daniel Jacobowitz MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer