From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 29268 invoked by alias); 19 Dec 2011 09:54:51 -0000 Received: (qmail 29257 invoked by uid 22791); 19 Dec 2011 09:54:50 -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 09:54:37 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 78B972BAB81; Mon, 19 Dec 2011 04:54:36 -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 VHA87+NOL+aT; Mon, 19 Dec 2011 04:54:36 -0500 (EST) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E94FF2BAB71; Mon, 19 Dec 2011 04:54:35 -0500 (EST) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 7C762145615; Mon, 19 Dec 2011 01:54:27 -0800 (PST) Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2011 10:13:00 -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: <20111219095427.GT21915@adacore.com> References: <20111218115343.GB22534@host2.jankratochvil.net> <20111219034807.GN21915@adacore.com> <20111219093131.GA3484@host2.jankratochvil.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20111219093131.GA3484@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/msg00628.txt.bz2 > The freeing is not the only problem. The same problem applies on the lines > accessing the elements, those statements can also crash now without this > patch. It is just not shown in this crash backtrace. Ugh, this is really nasty. I know you've delved into this more than I have, so I am Ok with your proposed initial work around. Others might have an opinion too. Is it worth labeling all the places that we ended up modifying? I guess not - they all reference the new field which is clearly documented as being here to work around a deficiency in the design. I think this problem ties us with the problem Tom was trying to figure out, where BFD opens and closes bfd's without telling us. -- Joel