From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 29504 invoked by alias); 6 Oct 2006 02:03:55 -0000 Received: (qmail 29492 invoked by uid 22791); 6 Oct 2006 02:03:54 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from nile.gnat.com (HELO nile.gnat.com) (205.232.38.5) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Fri, 06 Oct 2006 02:03:52 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-nile.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F08B748CF8C for ; Thu, 5 Oct 2006 22:03:49 -0400 (EDT) Received: from nile.gnat.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (nile.gnat.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 22123-01-2 for ; Thu, 5 Oct 2006 22:03:49 -0400 (EDT) Received: from takamaka.act-europe.fr (unknown [70.71.0.212]) by nile.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7295548CF8B for ; Thu, 5 Oct 2006 22:03:49 -0400 (EDT) Received: by takamaka.act-europe.fr (Postfix, from userid 507) id B90FE47F00; Thu, 5 Oct 2006 19:03:48 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 06 Oct 2006 02:03:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [RFA] Fix frame-issue with watchpoints... Message-ID: <20061006020348.GB980@adacore.com> References: <20061006005009.GA986@adacore.com> <20061006012018.GA19918@nevyn.them.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20061006012018.GA19918@nevyn.them.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2006-10/txt/msg00049.txt.bz2 > > The issue in our case is that "current_frame" is NULL too, probably > > because we never needed it before in our case (just finished off > > single-stepping out of the breakpoint and immediately getting ready > > to resume) and therefore never set it to a proper value. > > This is 100% bogus. If we leave this code at all, we should absolutely > do this: > > > One way to bandaid this, probably along the lines that Andrew was > > trying to do (try to recover from a situation that should not happen), > > is to replace "current_frame" by get_current_frame(). > > Or just kill it. Let me do a testsuite run without this code, and see what comes out of it. Perhaps it's time to kill it. > is also right. Except that you really scared me here: you are actually > starting from the _innermost_ frame, not the _outermost_. Argh, yes, of course! I keep thinking the wrong way when I don't pay attention. Sorry. > > 2006-10-05 Joel Brobecker > > > > * blockframe.c (block_innermost_frame): Rewrite frame search logic. > > > > Tested on x86-linux, no regression. A new testcase to be submitted soon. > > OK to apply? > > OK. Thanks, now applied. (and thanks for the lightning-fast review, it is always very much appreciated) -- Joel