From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 16241 invoked by alias); 21 Feb 2011 15:47:15 -0000 Received: (qmail 16229 invoked by uid 22791); 21 Feb 2011 15:47:12 -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; Mon, 21 Feb 2011 15:47:08 +0000 Received: (qmail 7595 invoked from network); 21 Feb 2011 15:47:06 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO scottsdale.localnet) (pedro@127.0.0.2) by mail.codesourcery.com with ESMTPA; 21 Feb 2011 15:47:06 -0000 From: Pedro Alves To: "Pierre Muller" Subject: Re: [RFA] Fix for testsuite errors with gdbserver (remote) Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2011 15:54:00 -0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.13.5 (Linux/2.6.35-25-generic; KDE/4.6.0; x86_64; ; ) Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <4D5C71F6.80208@vmware.com> <201102211150.04538.pedro@codesourcery.com> <00b601cbd1db$7173d250$545b76f0$@muller@ics-cnrs.unistra.fr> In-Reply-To: <00b601cbd1db$7173d250$545b76f0$@muller@ics-cnrs.unistra.fr> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <201102211547.02115.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: 2011-02/txt/msg00551.txt.bz2 On Monday 21 February 2011 15:24:33, Pierre Muller wrote: > > That all said, it looks like the python api doesn't define > > exactly what can be done on an ExitedEvent, and even if > > we address the gdbarch issue, if it's intended that the > > python user code can do whatever, we're likely to see python/gdb > > calls there that try to do something that calls has_stack_frames, > > and that will internal error too. On that ground, I do think > > we should put in Pierre's patch, as I'm not seeing what > > possible harm can it do, and that gets things working again. > > But I'll note that if the handler is allowed to assume the > > whole api is available at this point, and that the current > > global state can be used as if in the top-level, we'll > > probably see other similar cases triggering. > > > Should I take this as an approval of my patch? > Or do you want me to wait some more in case someone > else has a better idea of how to fix this issue? Go ahead and put it in, thanks. -- Pedro Alves