From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 24785 invoked by alias); 10 Mar 2006 19:54:20 -0000 Received: (qmail 24776 invoked by uid 22791); 10 Mar 2006 19:54:19 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Fri, 10 Mar 2006 19:54:19 +0000 Received: from int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (int-mx1.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.254]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id k2AJsG30011615; Fri, 10 Mar 2006 14:54:16 -0500 Received: from potter.sfbay.redhat.com (potter.sfbay.redhat.com [172.16.27.15]) by int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id k2AJsF132412; Fri, 10 Mar 2006 14:54:15 -0500 Received: from [172.16.24.50] (bluegiant.sfbay.redhat.com [172.16.24.50]) by potter.sfbay.redhat.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id k2AJsEmG020048; Fri, 10 Mar 2006 14:54:14 -0500 Message-ID: <4411D965.2020905@redhat.com> Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2006 20:08:00 -0000 From: Michael Snyder User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.7-1.4.1 (X11/20050929) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Daniel Jacobowitz CC: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: Handle fork exit more gracefully in linux-fork.c References: <20060227164348.GA20931@nevyn.them.org> In-Reply-To: <20060227164348.GA20931@nevyn.them.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2006-03/txt/msg00165.txt.bz2 Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > A cleanup I made while working on my next patch. I was debugging > some checkpoint.exp failures by hand, and the most obvious thing for > me to do was to create a checkpoint, let the current one exit, and > then continue the previous checkpoint - but as soon as I did this > it crashed with corrupted register state. > > We weren't restoring the saved registers in linux_fork_mourn_inferior. > And we were somehow clobbering the previous registers. Moving > some bits from the explicit context-switch code into the restore-a-fork > routine fixed all that. Answered my own questions. Yes, this looks fine. By the way, when you include your .sig *before* the patch, thunderbird won't include the patch in the reply. ;-(