From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 15600 invoked by alias); 10 Jun 2009 23:41:04 -0000 Received: (qmail 15592 invoked by uid 22791); 10 Jun 2009 23:41:04 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail.codesourcery.com (HELO mail.codesourcery.com) (65.74.133.4) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Wed, 10 Jun 2009 23:40:59 +0000 Received: (qmail 28312 invoked from network); 10 Jun 2009 23:40:57 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO orlando.local) (pedro@127.0.0.2) by mail.codesourcery.com with ESMTPA; 10 Jun 2009 23:40:57 -0000 From: Pedro Alves To: tromey@redhat.com Subject: Re: varobj bug? Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2009 23:41:00 -0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.10 Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <200906080041.07004.pedro@codesourcery.com> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200906110042.11900.pedro@codesourcery.com> 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: 2009-06/txt/msg00282.txt.bz2 On Tuesday 09 June 2009 22:09:14, Tom Tromey wrote: > >>>>> "Pedro" == Pedro Alves writes: > > Pedro> [ Just stumbled on this while reading this code. ] > Pedro> Isn't the patch below a bug fix? FI possibly points at > Pedro> the frame returned by: > Pedro> fi = find_frame_addr_in_frame_chain (frame); > Pedro> not the originally selected frame. > > I agree with your analysis. Thanks. I tested and checked in the fixlet with this changelog entry: 2009-06-11 Pedro Alves * varobj.c (varobj_create): Properly restore the selected frame. > Pedro> Maybe this code should be using make_cleanup_restore_current_thread? > > This also sounds reasonable. Ok, I'll see about cooking something up. -- Pedro Alves