From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 9221 invoked by alias); 13 Apr 2009 12:56:54 -0000 Received: (qmail 9202 invoked by uid 22791); 13 Apr 2009 12:56:53 -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; Mon, 13 Apr 2009 12:56:48 +0000 Received: from nan.false.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DE0257C09B; Mon, 13 Apr 2009 12:56:45 +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 9EA167C09A; Mon, 13 Apr 2009 12:56:45 +0000 (GMT) Received: from drow by caradoc.them.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1LtLiO-0004DQ-1K; Mon, 13 Apr 2009 08:56:44 -0400 Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2009 12:56:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Jan Kratochvil Cc: Jeremy Bennett , gdb-patches@sourceware.org, Denys Vlasenko Subject: Re: "no longer active" registers Message-ID: <20090413125643.GA15847@caradoc.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Jan Kratochvil , Jeremy Bennett , gdb-patches@sourceware.org, Denys Vlasenko References: <1239610666.13312.97.camel@thomas> <20090413124021.GA7419@host0.dyn.jankratochvil.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20090413124021.GA7419@host0.dyn.jankratochvil.net> 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: 2009-04/txt/msg00232.txt.bz2 On Mon, Apr 13, 2009 at 02:40:21PM +0200, Jan Kratochvil wrote: > > I notice that this patch is not part of the main GDB CVS tree. Are there > > plans to incorporate this patch into the main CVS tree, or are there > > side-effects that mean it is not generally applicable? > > While I could not find a regression by this patch it is just a fixup of one of > the many places affected by the ambiguous meaning of a NULL frame. I think it's the opposite workaround that should be used. The NULL ID is usually the outermost frame, not the innermost. I don't have a link handy but I've posted another workaround for this to the list in the past. > Probably the right fix is to have non-NULL frame value for the unbacktraceable > frame. Yes, I agree. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery