From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 2403 invoked by alias); 21 Apr 2004 17:58:15 -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 2391 invoked from network); 21 Apr 2004 17:58:13 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 21 Apr 2004 17:58:13 -0000 Received: from int-mx2.corp.redhat.com (int-mx2.corp.redhat.com [172.16.27.26]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i3LHwBFe022070 for ; Wed, 21 Apr 2004 13:58:11 -0400 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 i3LHwAw16995; Wed, 21 Apr 2004 13:58:10 -0400 Received: from redhat.com (dhcp-172-16-25-160.sfbay.redhat.com [172.16.25.160]) by potter.sfbay.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i3LHw9C02081; Wed, 21 Apr 2004 10:58:09 -0700 Message-ID: <4086B631.9050304@redhat.com> Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2004 17:58:00 -0000 From: Michael Snyder Organization: Red Hat, Inc. User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; es-ES; rv:1.4.2) Gecko/20040301 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Daniel Jacobowitz CC: cagney , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [RFA] Prevent runaway (infinite loop) in mips-tdep.c References: <4085BE65.3000402@redhat.com> <20040421005257.GA11993@nevyn.them.org> In-Reply-To: <20040421005257.GA11993@nevyn.them.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-RedHat-Spam-Score: 0 X-SW-Source: 2004-04/txt/msg00497.txt.bz2 Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > On Wed, Apr 21, 2004 at 12:20:53AM +0000, Michael Snyder wrote: > >>Hi Andrew, >> >>This change will prevent the caller(s) of mips_mdebug_frame_id from >>infinite-looping when we get badly lost on the stack frame. >> > > >>2004-04-21 Michael Snyder >> >> * mips-tdep.c (mips_mdebug_frame_cache): Call error to prevent >> infinite looping by caller. >> (heuristic_proc_start): Warning() already prefixes "Warning: ". > > > Since I have some patches to make this "I'm not sure how" case into a > working part of the unwinder, I don't much like this. They got hung up > on the question of how to trust proc_desc's when we might be in the > prologue. > > One time where this case occurs is in backtracing from a NULL pointer > dereference, which happens in the GDB testsuite now. OK -- can I see your patches? Maybe they'll solve the runaway condition I'm experiencing, and if not, maybe I can fix it in a way that's consistant with what you're doing.