From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 21131 invoked by alias); 27 Feb 2008 00:43:27 -0000 Received: (qmail 21122 invoked by uid 22791); 27 Feb 2008 00:43:26 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from NaN.false.org (HELO nan.false.org) (208.75.86.248) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Wed, 27 Feb 2008 00:43:07 +0000 Received: from nan.false.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E25589811F; Wed, 27 Feb 2008 00:43:05 +0000 (GMT) Received: from caradoc.them.org (22.svnf5.xdsl.nauticom.net [209.195.183.55]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BFBCD98118; Wed, 27 Feb 2008 00:43:05 +0000 (GMT) Received: from drow by caradoc.them.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1JUAO1-00054B-1s; Tue, 26 Feb 2008 19:43:05 -0500 Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2008 00:51:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Michael Snyder Cc: Greg Law , gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: SIGSEGV on gdb 6.7* Message-ID: <20080227004305.GA29652@caradoc.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Michael Snyder , Greg Law , gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <47A77A6C.8050007@undo-software.com> <1204066487.19253.346.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20080227002617.GA19479@caradoc.them.org> <1204072653.19253.371.camel@localhost.localdomain> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1204072653.19253.371.camel@localhost.localdomain> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-12-11) X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2008-02/txt/msg00419.txt.bz2 On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 04:37:33PM -0800, Michael Snyder wrote: > On Tue, 2008-02-26 at 19:26 -0500, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 02:54:47PM -0800, Michael Snyder wrote: > > > That said -- I agree with Daniel. I can see where > > > flushing the register cache and flushing the frame cache > > > are two things that should probably always be done at > > > the same time -- but I'm worried about the extra overhead > > > that this patch introduces. We call registers_changed > > > A LOT, and in doing so we assume that it has a very > > > low overhead. > > > > If the registers have changed, how can the frame cache still possibly > > be valid? > > No argument -- it can't. > > Are you swinging around toward wanting to accept this patch? > ;-) I'm talking about Greg's version, which calls it from registers_changed. What do you think of that one? -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery