From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 2119 invoked by alias); 11 Feb 2003 16:55:49 -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 2111 invoked from network); 11 Feb 2003 16:55:48 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO localhost.redhat.com) (212.112.189.80) by 172.16.49.205 with SMTP; 11 Feb 2003 16:55:48 -0000 Received: from redhat.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 33FCD3CE5; Tue, 11 Feb 2003 17:55:49 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <3E492B15.50601@redhat.com> Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 16:55:00 -0000 From: Andrew Cagney User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; NetBSD macppc; en-US; rv:1.0.1) Gecko/20021211 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Michael Snyder , Jim Blandy Cc: Joel Brobecker , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [RFA] (ping) GDB crash when using command lines due to memory corruption References: <20021211173805.GG25575@gnat.com> <8096FEF2-0D32-11D7-9BDD-00039396EEB8@apple.com> <20030113032110.GQ30359@gnat.com> <20030211093827.GG1230@gnat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2003-02/txt/msg00273.txt.bz2 Jim? Michael? Per the bug database, three variants on this patch have been submitted yet nothing got resolved. Andrew >> There is a patch that was submitted on Oct 30th 2002 but hasn't been >> reviewed despite the fact that it addresses a GDB crash. It also >> expands break.exp to test for this. > > > Second ping... > > >> On Wed, Dec 11, 2002 at 01:00:58PM -0500, 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. > > > Thanks, > -- Joel