From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 22524 invoked by alias); 3 Nov 2011 16:20:50 -0000 Received: (qmail 22514 invoked by uid 22791); 3 Nov 2011 16:20:48 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-7.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Thu, 03 Nov 2011 16:20:31 +0000 Received: from int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.23]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id pA3GKVcW018173 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK) for ; Thu, 3 Nov 2011 12:20:31 -0400 Received: from host1.jankratochvil.net (ovpn-116-23.ams2.redhat.com [10.36.116.23]) by int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id pA3GKSQr001267 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Thu, 3 Nov 2011 12:20:30 -0400 Received: from host1.jankratochvil.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by host1.jankratochvil.net (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id pA3GKRZv002787; Thu, 3 Nov 2011 17:20:27 +0100 Received: (from jkratoch@localhost) by host1.jankratochvil.net (8.14.4/8.14.4/Submit) id pA3GKRU8002348; Thu, 3 Nov 2011 17:20:27 +0100 Date: Thu, 03 Nov 2011 16:20:00 -0000 From: Jan Kratochvil To: Michael Eager Cc: "gdb-patches@sourceware.org" Subject: Re: SEGV in dwarf2read.c -- gdb-7.2 Message-ID: <20111103162026.GA12269@host1.jankratochvil.net> References: <4EB2BD58.3080003@eagerm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4EB2BD58.3080003@eagerm.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) 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: 2011-11/txt/msg00076.txt.bz2 Hello Michael, sorry but I cannot comment more without a reproducer, such possible fix should have a regression testcase anyway. Could you provide a reproducer in some form even just off-list (so that I can reduce it if it is not completely public and not so critically secure)? On Thu, 03 Nov 2011 17:12:08 +0100, Michael Eager wrote: > I ran into a SEGV in in gdb-7.2 The stable release is 7.3.1, moreover for such development I would find only FSF GDB HEAD relevant. I remember several fixes which it may be related to. > Is there a reason to read the CU header into a temporary data > area rather than reload it using load_full_comp_unit() which will add it to > the CU cache? I guess for performance reasons, the CU header read-in vs. load_full_comp_unit is a big difference. There are already some PRs (such as 12828 (a)) where GDB needlessly expands too many CUs "locking itself" by inacceptable performance. Thanks, Jan