From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 32696 invoked by alias); 15 Jun 2009 18:03:20 -0000 Received: (qmail 32687 invoked by uid 22791); 15 Jun 2009 18:03:20 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from smtp-outbound-2.vmware.com (HELO smtp-outbound-2.vmware.com) (65.115.85.73) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Mon, 15 Jun 2009 18:03:15 +0000 Received: from mailhost2.vmware.com (mailhost2.vmware.com [10.16.67.167]) by smtp-outbound-2.vmware.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1AC2142003; Mon, 15 Jun 2009 11:03:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.20.94.141] (msnyder-server.eng.vmware.com [10.20.94.141]) by mailhost2.vmware.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 040AA8E978; Mon, 15 Jun 2009 11:03:14 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4A368D04.7000107@vmware.com> Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2009 18:03:00 -0000 From: Michael Snyder User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.12 (X11/20080411) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Marc Khouzam CC: Hui Zhu , "gdb-patches@sourceware.org" Subject: Re: [RFA] Patch to fix reverse-debug recursion function tail bug References: <4A359C0C.9090508@vmware.com> <6D19CA8D71C89C43A057926FE0D4ADAA0797603A@ecamlmw720.eamcs.ericsson.se> In-Reply-To: <6D19CA8D71C89C43A057926FE0D4ADAA0797603A@ecamlmw720.eamcs.ericsson.se> 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-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2009-06/txt/msg00395.txt.bz2 Marc Khouzam wrote: >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Hui Zhu [mailto:teawater@gmail.com] >> Sent: June-14-09 11:37 PM >> To: Michael Snyder; Marc Khouzam >> Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org >> Subject: Re: [RFA] Patch to fix reverse-debug recursion >> function tail bug >> >> On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 08:55, Michael >> Snyder wrote: >>> Hui Zhu wrote: >>>> PING >>> Thanks for the reminder. >>> >>> I added some comment and changed the order of evaluation a bit, >>> hoping to reduce the performance impact on normal debugging. >>> And I ran the testsuites, before and after. >>> >>> Modified patch is attached -- is this OK with you guys? >>> Mark, can you confirm that it fixes your original bug? >>> >> This patch is OK with me. >> Marc, what do you think about it? > > I tested before and after the patch and it does fix > the problem for me. Great, so sounds like this one can go in. Michael