From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 27955 invoked by alias); 15 Mar 2011 17:38:19 -0000 Received: (qmail 27841 invoked by uid 22791); 15 Mar 2011 17:38:17 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from rock.gnat.com (HELO rock.gnat.com) (205.232.38.15) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Tue, 15 Mar 2011 17:38:10 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AEC7D2BAF4C; Tue, 15 Mar 2011 13:38:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from rock.gnat.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (rock.gnat.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 0peoyjRW--sA; Tue, 15 Mar 2011 13:38:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6BFD62BAEAF; Tue, 15 Mar 2011 13:38:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 7BE4E1459B0; Tue, 15 Mar 2011 21:38:05 +0400 (RET) Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2011 17:44:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Pedro Alves Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org, Michael Snyder Subject: Re: [RFA] frame.c (find_frame_sal): Check return value of get_frame_function. Message-ID: <20110315173805.GN31264@adacore.com> References: <4D719288.6050301@vmware.com> <20110315162609.GM31264@adacore.com> <201103151653.54091.pedro@codesourcery.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <201103151653.54091.pedro@codesourcery.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) 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: 2011-03/txt/msg00798.txt.bz2 > It would normally, but in this case, we've just found that > the next frame is an inlined function call. Then it > certainly has debug info? Otherwise, how would gdb know > it's an inlined function call? Indeed, I think you're right. inline_skipped_symbol shouldn't be returning a NULL symbol, as far as I can tell. So should we just add a gdb_assert with a comment explaining why we expect sym to be non-NULL? -- Joel