From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 31553 invoked by alias); 5 Nov 2004 22:00:00 -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 31508 invoked from network); 5 Nov 2004 21:59:59 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO walton.sibelius.xs4all.nl) (82.92.89.47) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 5 Nov 2004 21:59:59 -0000 Received: from elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl (elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl [192.168.0.2]) by walton.sibelius.xs4all.nl (8.13.0/8.13.0) with ESMTP id iA5LvXiW030949; Fri, 5 Nov 2004 22:57:33 +0100 (CET) Received: from elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl (8.12.6p3/8.12.6) with ESMTP id iA5LvXZ6015019; Fri, 5 Nov 2004 22:57:33 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from kettenis@elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl) Received: (from kettenis@localhost) by elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl (8.12.6p3/8.12.6/Submit) id iA5LvXc1015016; Fri, 5 Nov 2004 22:57:33 +0100 (CET) Date: Fri, 05 Nov 2004 22:00:00 -0000 Message-Id: <200411052157.iA5LvXc1015016@elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl> From: Mark Kettenis To: drow@false.org CC: cagney@gnu.org, mark.kettenis@xs4all.nl, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com In-reply-to: <20041105212505.GA31737@nevyn.them.org> (message from Daniel Jacobowitz on Fri, 5 Nov 2004 16:25:05 -0500) Subject: Re: [COMMIT] Fix decoding CIE's in DWARF frame info References: <200411051543.iA5Fh1nK020633@juw15.nfra.nl> <418BB19C.7000100@gnu.org> <200411051853.iA5IrpfP014435@elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl> <418BEEF9.4050507@gnu.org> <20041105212505.GA31737@nevyn.them.org> X-SW-Source: 2004-11/txt/msg00096.txt.bz2 Date: Fri, 5 Nov 2004 16:25:05 -0500 From: Daniel Jacobowitz On Fri, Nov 05, 2004 at 04:22:01PM -0500, Andrew Cagney wrote: > > >Anyway, I noticed the problem when writing some code at work. > >Unfortunately I don't know how to convert it into a test case. > > I was thinking regression testing. I'm finding that: > ./gdb foo > (gdb) run > gets a panic on CFI systems - RHEL 3 amd64, FC3 i386 and amd64. > > Can we set this patch aside until we know what's going on? We can then > think about a backport for 6.3.1. It does not show any problems here, on Debian i386 (using FCI). But it does for me on OpenBSD/amd64 :-(. I'll investigate. Obviously I won't be checking this in on the branch, util I know what's wrong here. Mark