From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 31463 invoked by alias); 23 Jun 2009 18:46:10 -0000 Received: (qmail 31455 invoked by uid 22791); 23 Jun 2009 18:46:10 -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; Tue, 23 Jun 2009 18:46:02 +0000 Received: from nan.false.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 67C841018C; Tue, 23 Jun 2009 18:46:00 +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 00F7C10148; Tue, 23 Jun 2009 18:45:59 +0000 (GMT) Received: from drow by caradoc.them.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1MJB0I-0000pb-PJ; Tue, 23 Jun 2009 14:45:58 -0400 Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2009 18:46:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Joel Brobecker Cc: Nick Roberts , gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] PR backtrace/9786 Message-ID: <20090623184558.GA3179@caradoc.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Joel Brobecker , Nick Roberts , gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <18849.13514.379735.375860@kahikatea.snap.net.nz> <18921.8753.647539.260364@totara.tehura.co.nz> <20090623183853.GI7766@adacore.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20090623183853.GI7766@adacore.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: 2009-06/txt/msg00632.txt.bz2 On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 11:38:53AM -0700, Joel Brobecker wrote: > > Current behaviour breaks remote debugging when using GDB in Emacs as it > > currently uses "info frame". If this behaviour can't be fully resolved > > before the release could a less than perfect patch be applied to prevent > > the assertion error? > > This is on the list of blocking issues for 7.0, I think. We'll figure > out something. The question remains who "we" will be - I'm going to be > pretty swamped until September... I have a patch which, if I haven't gotten turned around, fixes this. I can post it after I get inlining merged. I'll warn you right off, though, you won't like it. Consider it a starting point for discussion of the right solution :-) -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery