From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 30655 invoked by alias); 1 Feb 2009 18:34:35 -0000 Received: (qmail 30646 invoked by uid 22791); 1 Feb 2009 18:34:35 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from NaN.false.org (HELO nan.false.org) (208.75.86.248) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Sun, 01 Feb 2009 18:34:26 +0000 Received: from nan.false.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 32FE5109AE; Sun, 1 Feb 2009 18:34:25 +0000 (GMT) Received: from caradoc.them.org (209.195.188.212.nauticom.net [209.195.188.212]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1FB4B108C4; Sun, 1 Feb 2009 18:34:25 +0000 (GMT) Received: from drow by caradoc.them.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1LTh9E-00027G-NR; Sun, 01 Feb 2009 13:34:24 -0500 Date: Sun, 01 Feb 2009 18:34:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Pedro Alves Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: info frame ADDR internal error Message-ID: <20090201183424.GG4597@caradoc.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Pedro Alves , gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <200901251635.30297.pedro@codesourcery.com> <20090125175925.GA7133@caradoc.them.org> <200901251944.32616.pedro@codesourcery.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200901251944.32616.pedro@codesourcery.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2008-05-11) 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: 2009-02/txt/msg00007.txt.bz2 On Sun, Jan 25, 2009 at 07:44:32PM +0000, Pedro Alves wrote: > The new frame that create_new_frame created, isn't linked in the > regular ( current_frame->... ) frame chain, it lives in its own chain, > so this frame_find_by_id call isn't going to find it, unless you > get lucky. > > This reinforces the bad things I was saying about create_new_frame. > > Any suggestions on how this could be fixed? This is just gross. But yes, I see a way we could "fix" it. This code is only reachable from select_frame and info frame. In the former case, if we create a new frame we could clear the old frame chain and set both current and selected frame to the new one; in the latter case we'd have to clear the frame chain after info frame was done, and restore the saved selected frame. I do think this is somewhat useful, although being able to set registers while debugging a core file would eliminate a lot of the use... -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery