From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 5190 invoked by alias); 5 Jun 2012 19:39:41 -0000 Received: (qmail 5181 invoked by uid 22791); 5 Jun 2012 19:39:41 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_RCVD_UNTRUST,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_W,SPF_HELO_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD 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; Tue, 05 Jun 2012 19:39:24 +0000 Received: from int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.12]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q55JdOuD019889 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK) for ; Tue, 5 Jun 2012 15:39:24 -0400 Received: from host2.jankratochvil.net (ovpn-116-47.ams2.redhat.com [10.36.116.47]) by int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q55JdK3r031330 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Tue, 5 Jun 2012 15:39:23 -0400 Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2012 19:39:00 -0000 From: Jan Kratochvil To: Pedro Alves Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [downstream patch FYI] workaround stale frame_info * (PR 13866) Message-ID: <20120605193920.GA19998@host2.jankratochvil.net> References: <20120404191416.GA29603@host2.jankratochvil.net> <4FCE5B14.4030808@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4FCE5B14.4030808@redhat.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: 2012-06/txt/msg00153.txt.bz2 On Tue, 05 Jun 2012 21:16:36 +0200, Pedro Alves wrote: > I've then ran the whole testsuite with this on, and that didn't catch > any other problem. You mention in PR13866 many situations with stale > frame_info; did you have some other way to catch those, No. This single PR13866 crash and GDB code in general gives me enough reasoning to believe: (a) There exist other such crashes in GDB, just not tested by the testsuite. (b) More of such crashes will regress by changes in the future. This is just my personal opinion you may not agree with. > or was that just a hunch? I appreciate not using this tone. Regards, Jan