From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 84913 invoked by alias); 30 May 2018 23:26:03 -0000 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 Received: (qmail 84864 invoked by uid 89); 30 May 2018 23:26:00 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy=promptly, Hx-languages-length:1259, hesitate, you! X-HELO: rock.gnat.com Received: from rock.gnat.com (HELO rock.gnat.com) (205.232.38.15) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Wed, 30 May 2018 23:25:59 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 337CE560BA; Wed, 30 May 2018 19:25:56 -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 qAG3kcbTi709; Wed, 30 May 2018 19:25:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 02353560B9; Wed, 30 May 2018 19:25:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id E4AE483056; Wed, 30 May 2018 16:25:53 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 31 May 2018 00:20:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Andrew D'Addesio Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] Process record: Fix null deref when loading empty core file Message-ID: <20180530232553.2diy23kusfrptzdd@adacore.com> References: <1526075698-20880-1-git-send-email-modchipv12@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: NeoMutt/20170113 (1.7.2) X-SW-Source: 2018-05/txt/msg00828.txt.bz2 Hi Andrew, The patch you sent seems reasonable to me, and I'd be ready to approve it. But the information you sent below is extremely useful for understanding the conditions necessary to reproduce the issue you are fixing. This is both useful for understanding and reviewing your patch, but also for others who might either find this thread, or else be looking at your patch, and wondering what you were trying to do, when you made your change. With that in mind, can you create a commit which contains the explanation you just gave in the revision log, followed by whatever explanation you feel is necessary to provide as to how you fixed the problem, followed by the ChangeLog entry and a note of how the fix was tested (which platform, which tests that were a FAIL now became a PASS). Browsing the gdb-patches mailing-list for example of how others submit patches should give you a fair idea of what we prefer. Do not hesitate to Cc: me on the resubmission of this specific patch, and I will make every effort to review promptly. Thank you! On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 05:00:29PM -0500, Andrew D'Addesio wrote: > Here's an explanation of the bug: > > Description: [snip] -- Joel