From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 1048 invoked by alias); 15 Jan 2009 11:20:55 -0000 Received: (qmail 1040 invoked by uid 22791); 15 Jan 2009 11:20:55 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from rock.gnat.com (HELO rock.gnat.com) (205.232.38.15) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Thu, 15 Jan 2009 11:20:19 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BCF0A2A96D1; Thu, 15 Jan 2009 06:20:17 -0500 (EST) Received: from rock.gnat.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (rock.gnat.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 8f5TyElJD-34; Thu, 15 Jan 2009 06:20:17 -0500 (EST) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 498992A95C7; Thu, 15 Jan 2009 06:20:17 -0500 (EST) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 5858BE7ACD; Thu, 15 Jan 2009 15:20:10 +0400 (RET) Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2009 11:20:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Ulrich Weigand Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [rfc] Add assert to catch get_frame_arch (NULL) calls Message-ID: <20090115112010.GH24105@adacore.com> References: <200901131806.n0DI6dYw012644@d12av02.megacenter.de.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200901131806.n0DI6dYw012644@d12av02.megacenter.de.ibm.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.2i 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: 2009-01/txt/msg00350.txt.bz2 Hmpf, should have read the rest of my gdb-patches mail before answering your previous commit - I'm just a little tied up right now, so I just browse some emails semi-randomly when I have a few minutes of free time. > ChangeLog: > > * frame.c (get_frame_arch): Abort if called with NULL this_frame. This would fine for me. I'm slightly concerned about the next release, whether this might introduce an unnecessary risk or not. But this will depend on the amount of time that we will take before creating the next branch. I will add that to the list of things to reassess before we make the next release. -- Joel