From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 20825 invoked by alias); 30 Mar 2010 17:55:16 -0000 Received: (qmail 20815 invoked by uid 22791); 30 Mar 2010 17:55:15 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail.codesourcery.com (HELO mail.codesourcery.com) (38.113.113.100) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Tue, 30 Mar 2010 17:55:11 +0000 Received: (qmail 32013 invoked from network); 30 Mar 2010 17:55:10 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO orlando.localnet) (pedro@127.0.0.2) by mail.codesourcery.com with ESMTPA; 30 Mar 2010 17:55:10 -0000 From: Pedro Alves To: Jan Kratochvil Subject: Re: [patch] Fix crash on NULL rl_prompt Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2010 17:55:00 -0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.12.2 (Linux/2.6.31-20-generic; KDE/4.3.2; x86_64; ; ) Cc: tromey@redhat.com, gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <20100329234026.GA23895@host0.dyn.jankratochvil.net> <201003301825.18754.pedro@codesourcery.com> <20100330172940.GA17534@host0.dyn.jankratochvil.net> In-Reply-To: <20100330172940.GA17534@host0.dyn.jankratochvil.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <201003301855.08267.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: 2010-03/txt/msg01074.txt.bz2 On Tuesday 30 March 2010 18:29:40, Jan Kratochvil wrote: > On Tue, 30 Mar 2010 19:25:18 +0200, Pedro Alves wrote: > > GDB always gives readline a non-NULL prompt, from what I've seen. > > gdb/tui/tui-io.c > tui_setup_io (int mode) > if (mode) > rl_prompt = 0; > Yes, but rl_set_prompt should be called shortly after, and before tui_prep_terminal, so TUI displays a prompt as well. Try setting a watchpoint on rl_prompt, a break on tui_prep_terminal and switching to the TUI and back. On Tuesday 30 March 2010 18:30:48, Tom Tromey wrote: > I see it as defensive programming. Yes, of course. > We can always un-approve it, if you would rather wait to see if a > reproducer is available. I'll leave it up to you to decide. But if this goes in, perhaps a comment saying this is being defensive would be good. -- Pedro Alves