From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 29926 invoked by alias); 19 Dec 2011 03:48:35 -0000 Received: (qmail 29917 invoked by uid 22791); 19 Dec 2011 03:48:35 -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; Mon, 19 Dec 2011 03:48:16 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3F4CC2BB343; Sun, 18 Dec 2011 22:48:16 -0500 (EST) 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 c6jH06vqcY7y; Sun, 18 Dec 2011 22:48:16 -0500 (EST) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B12072BB1D6; Sun, 18 Dec 2011 22:48:15 -0500 (EST) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 692EB145615; Sun, 18 Dec 2011 19:48:07 -0800 (PST) Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2011 04:17:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Jan Kratochvil Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org, Pedro Alves Subject: Re: [patch+7.4] reread.exp 7.3->7.4 regression Message-ID: <20111219034807.GN21915@adacore.com> References: <20111218115343.GB22534@host2.jankratochvil.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20111218115343.GB22534@host2.jankratochvil.net> 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: 2011-12/txt/msg00617.txt.bz2 Hi Jan, > this patch should be tested on ARM, I do not yet have some ARM testing > environment (I probably could build one). Unfortunately, I don't have an arm environment either. Perhaps CodeSourcery does? > As I believe the patch above is not suitable for the 7.4 branch > offering at least this very ugly patch which breaks ARM functionality > on rereads but it at least does not break ARM-unrelated arches. Yeah, I'm a little concerned by your patch. I might be OK putting it in the branch, but I'd rather not do that until we have found a proper fix on the head. Have we explored the idea of not registering the arm_exidx_data_free routine? We'd leak some memory, but the way I read arm_exidx_new_objfile, it wouldn't be very much except maybe when dealing with arm object files. WDYT? -- Joel