From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 6727 invoked by alias); 7 Aug 2004 16:24:47 -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 6718 invoked from network); 7 Aug 2004 16:24:47 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO nevyn.them.org) (66.93.172.17) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 7 Aug 2004 16:24:47 -0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 4.34 #1 (Debian)) id 1BtTzy-0000vJ-EL; Sat, 07 Aug 2004 12:24:46 -0400 Date: Sat, 07 Aug 2004 16:24:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Michael Chastain Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com, eliz@gnu.org Subject: Re: [rfa/doco] PROBLEMS: remove pr gdb/1505 Message-ID: <20040807162446.GA3468@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Michael Chastain , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com, eliz@gnu.org References: <41145FDE.nail9GZ1WMY09@mindspring.com> <20040807051342.GA15773@nevyn.them.org> <4114842F.nailOJU11P7U6@mindspring.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4114842F.nailOJU11P7U6@mindspring.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.5.1+cvs20040105i X-SW-Source: 2004-08/txt/msg00202.txt.bz2 On Sat, Aug 07, 2004 at 03:26:39AM -0400, Michael Chastain wrote: > Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > drow> I'm curious - why do you believe that PR 1505 has been fixed? > drow> Some particular instance may have been, but the problem definitely > drow> remains - see discussion on gdb@ this week. > > My test bed says that the problem no longer occurs in the environment > where it was reported. Something changed in gdb since the last spin and > gdb finds the right bottom-of-stack now. > > The problem hasn't occured in any other environments that anyone has > seen, either. So I closed the PR. (I optimized away the feedback step > because I was the original submitter). I would tell the original > submitter: if it happens again, with the same or different platform, > file a new PR. > > I'm open to alternatives. How do you suggest we handle PR/1505? This is what I get for reading the entry in PROBLEMS that you were removing rather than the PR referenced. PR 1505 is fixed. However, the problem of stopping backtraces in general is not - Andrew made some suggestions. -- Daniel Jacobowitz