From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 27963 invoked by alias); 11 Dec 2002 23:22:42 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 27956 invoked from network); 11 Dec 2002 23:22:42 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 11 Dec 2002 23:22:42 -0000 Received: from int-mx2.corp.redhat.com (nat-pool-rdu-dmz.redhat.com [172.16.52.200]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id gBBMv1P21955 for ; Wed, 11 Dec 2002 17:57:01 -0500 Received: from potter.sfbay.redhat.com (potter.sfbay.redhat.com [172.16.27.15]) by int-mx2.corp.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id gBBNMNs12731; Wed, 11 Dec 2002 18:22:23 -0500 Received: from redhat.com (reddwarf.sfbay.redhat.com [172.16.24.50]) by potter.sfbay.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id gBBNMJ706659; Wed, 11 Dec 2002 15:22:19 -0800 Message-ID: <3DF7C8AB.6822A575@redhat.com> Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2002 15:24:00 -0000 From: Michael Snyder Organization: Red Hat, Inc. X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Klee Dienes CC: Joel Brobecker , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [RFC/RFA] GDB crash when using command lines due to memory corruption References: <8096FEF2-0D32-11D7-9BDD-00039396EEB8@apple.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2002-12/txt/msg00382.txt.bz2 Klee Dienes wrote: > > A safer change for 5.3 might be the patch I submitted on October 30th. > > http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb-patches/2002-10/msg00586.html > > Rather than deal with sharing the command-line structure, I just > updated bpstat_copy to match its comment, and do a deep copy of the > command lines as well as the value. I don't really have a strong > opinion about copying the command lines vs. managing them the way Joel > proposes, although my patch does have the argument of simplicity going > for it. On the other hand, if/when we go to a more sophistiated > command-line evaluator, we'll probably want the command body to be some > opaque and externally managed structure anyway. > > Whichever patch we end up taking, though, we should be sure to update > the comment in bpstat_copy and add my proposed change to the test suite. Joel, would Klee's change satisfy your requirement?