From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 8547 invoked by alias); 4 Feb 2008 21:59:10 -0000 Received: (qmail 8539 invoked by uid 22791); 4 Feb 2008 21:59:10 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from astro.systems.pipex.net (HELO astro.systems.pipex.net) (62.241.163.6) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Mon, 04 Feb 2008 21:58:46 +0000 Received: from [192.168.123.6] (88-106-248-241.dynamic.dsl.as9105.com [88.106.248.241]) by astro.systems.pipex.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3DCEBE000444; Mon, 4 Feb 2008 21:58:43 +0000 (GMT) Message-ID: <47A78A92.8000501@undo-software.com> Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2008 21:59:00 -0000 From: Greg Law User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (X11/20071022) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Greg Law , gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: SIGSEGV on gdb 6.7* References: <47A77A6C.8050007@undo-software.com> <20080204210333.GA23250@caradoc.them.org> <47A7850B.10202@undo-software.com> <20080204214504.GA25564@caradoc.them.org> In-Reply-To: <20080204214504.GA25564@caradoc.them.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2008-02/txt/msg00093.txt.bz2 Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > [Please reply to the list, thanks!] > > On Mon, Feb 04, 2008 at 09:35:07PM +0000, Greg Law wrote: >> When a register is examined, we (eventually) get to >> frame_register_unwind. This does: >> >> frame->unwind->prev_register (frame->next, &frame->prologue_cache, regnum, >> optimizedp, lvalp, addrp, realnump, bufferp); >> >> which is actually a function pointer to (on plain old x86 Linux) >> sentinel_frame_prev_register, which goes: > > Ah yes. That's the only prologue cache which has any business > accessing a regcache directly, none of the others do. > > flushregs should invalidate the frame cache and current/selected > frame. I have been meaning to fix that for, roughly, ever. Does > it work better if you do that? Should it be just flushregs that invalidates the frame cache, or should it happen from registers_changed()? g -- Greg Law, Undo Software http://undo-software.com/