A Sunday 04 May 2008 20:49:43, Pedro Alves wrote:
> A Friday 02 May 2008 15:38:22, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 25, 2008 at 05:15:45PM +0100, Pedro Alves wrote:
> > > Still OK?  I'll check the new longjmp.exp test in along with this one.
> >
> > Looks fine to me.
>
> Thanks.  I've checked this one in, and the test too.
>
> Non-stop mode should be now safer regarding longjmp.

Except, it's crashing in async mode ...

thread_p was only allocated when (!single_inst || skip_subroutines),
because on the other cases, we don't need longjmp breakpoints,
but, it was always being dereferenced in async mode.

There's really no reason to be using the heap.  Fixed by moving
the variable to the stack (as cleanup memory is supposed to be
managed in the first place).

Checked in as obvious.

-- 
Pedro Alves

/me teaches himself to never do last minute changes.
-- 
Pedro Alves