From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 16712 invoked by alias); 17 Apr 2012 15:16:14 -0000 Received: (qmail 16703 invoked by uid 22791); 17 Apr 2012 15:16:13 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_NO,TW_BJ 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, 17 Apr 2012 15:16:00 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E25611C68D9; Tue, 17 Apr 2012 11:15:56 -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 TDa7L2L758r9; Tue, 17 Apr 2012 11:15:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AD6861C6833; Tue, 17 Apr 2012 11:15:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 6E65D145616; Tue, 17 Apr 2012 08:15:49 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2012 15:17:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Tom Tromey Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: RFC: bfd_section should not be NULL in call to prim_record_minimal_* Message-ID: <20120417151549.GN2852@adacore.com> References: <1334610821-10974-1-git-send-email-brobecker@adacore.com> <87zkaawp9g.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <87zkaawp9g.fsf@fleche.redhat.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: 2012-04/txt/msg00487.txt.bz2 > This change is fine with me -- even more than fine, I think removing > special cases is generally better when possible. Thanks. I will commit this change today. > However, if this is just a regression caused by linespec changes, maybe > it can also be fixed in another way. That is, you can find a minsym's > objfile using msymbol_objfile; I think this would fix the possibly > problematic uses I see in linespec.c (the one in minsym_found is maybe > ok). Yes, I agree. I read the entire thread, and it seems so simple to fix the problem that way as well. I think both approaches should be applied. > Did you audit the other symbol readers? Hmmm, no. Wildo. -- Joel