From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 22648 invoked by alias); 14 Sep 2009 17:17:05 -0000 Received: (qmail 22640 invoked by uid 22791); 14 Sep 2009 17:17:05 -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-1.vmware.com (HELO smtp-outbound-1.vmware.com) (65.115.85.69) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Mon, 14 Sep 2009 17:17:01 +0000 Received: from mailhost3.vmware.com (mailhost3.vmware.com [10.16.27.45]) by smtp-outbound-1.vmware.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 17EEF130E5; Mon, 14 Sep 2009 10:17:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.20.94.141] (msnyder-server.eng.vmware.com [10.20.94.141]) by mailhost3.vmware.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0CBD6CD933; Mon, 14 Sep 2009 10:17:00 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4AAE79F0.2000506@vmware.com> Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2009 17:17:00 -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 ml' Subject: Re: PRecord sets memory even when it says it did not References: In-Reply-To: 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: 2009-09/txt/msg00414.txt.bz2 Marc Khouzam wrote: > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Hui Zhu [mailto:teawater@gmail.com] >> Sent: Monday, September 14, 2009 12:40 AM >> To: Marc Khouzam >> Cc: gdb@sourceware.org; Michael Snyder; gdb-patches ml >> Subject: Re: PRecord sets memory even when it says it did not >> > ... >> Hi Marc, >> >> Thanks for your help. >> >> I just tried change it with "p a=99". I think it must have something >> different with "set var a = 8". > > I also tried it with p a=8 and in my case, the same things happens: > the memory is changed. > >> This issue is because some value cache about the memory. So I add a >> "free_all_values ();" before error. >> It looks OK now. Please help me try it. > > I tried with the patch and it did not fix the problem. > Let me know if I can do anything to help debug. > I'm seing this on both SLED and Ubuntu. Mark -- By any chance, if you change the memory, and then do (say) a "stepi", does the memory revert to its previous value? Just wondering... Michael