From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 10053 invoked by alias); 14 Dec 2010 15:31:56 -0000 Received: (qmail 10042 invoked by uid 22791); 14 Dec 2010 15:31:55 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,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, 14 Dec 2010 15:31:47 +0000 Received: (qmail 10076 invoked from network); 14 Dec 2010 15:31:45 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO orlando.localnet) (pedro@127.0.0.2) by mail.codesourcery.com with ESMTPA; 14 Dec 2010 15:31:45 -0000 From: Pedro Alves To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: Assertion failure because of missing inferior Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2010 15:31:00 -0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.13.5 (Linux/2.6.33-29-realtime; KDE/4.4.5; x86_64; ; ) Cc: Joel Brobecker , Tom Tromey , Marc Khouzam References: <20101214150430.GV2596@adacore.com> In-Reply-To: <20101214150430.GV2596@adacore.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <201012141531.42381.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: 2010-12/txt/msg00231.txt.bz2 On Tuesday 14 December 2010 15:04:30, Joel Brobecker wrote: > > Marc> 2010-12-10 Marc Khouzam > > Marc> * mi/mi-main.c (mi_cmd_remove_inferior): Don't delete current inferior. > > Marc> (get_other_inferior): New. > > > > I think this is ok for the 7.2 branch, assuming Joel didn't do the > > release already :) > > I'll wait for the go ahead from you guys - I get confused with the > various emails... > > There is also a watchpoint-related patch (from Pedro) which Jan pointed > out. It looks a little riskier than the typical patch, but it fixes > crashes and has been in HEAD for 4 months now. So I suggested the > possibility of maybe putting it in, if we don't know of any issue that > this patch caused since putting it in HEAD.... I don't recall of any. It's fine with me to backport it, assuming the backport doesn't bring in half of 7.3 into the branch. :-) -- Pedro Alves