Re: [rfc] PR 20569, segv in follow_exec

Luis Machado
2016-10-19T16:14:54Z

On 10/19/2016 08:37 AM, Pedro Alves wrote:
> On 10/18/2016 07:11 PM, Luis Machado wrote:
>
>> I went through the patch and, although this code as a whole is a bit on
>> the convoluted side, it looks reasonable to me.
>>
>> Segfaults are not supposed to happen, so allowing the session to
>> continue is a good thing IMO.
>>
>> Sounds like a good candidate for master and even stable branches.
>
> I didn't look at the patch in detail yet, but I think it'd be
> very good to have tests?
>
> Thanks,
> Pedro Alves
>

I fixed a gotcha with the patch and i have a reproducer that makes GDB
crash on x86-64. I'll craft a test.