From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 29727 invoked by alias); 14 Sep 2009 17:26:42 -0000 Received: (qmail 29719 invoked by uid 22791); 14 Sep 2009 17:26:41 -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, 14 Sep 2009 17:26:37 +0000 Received: from mailhost4.vmware.com (mailhost4.vmware.com [10.16.67.124]) by smtp-outbound-2.vmware.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 14D4EB019; Mon, 14 Sep 2009 10:26:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.20.94.141] (msnyder-server.eng.vmware.com [10.20.94.141]) by mailhost4.vmware.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0C05DC9BDA; Mon, 14 Sep 2009 10:26:36 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4AAE7C30.7020507@vmware.com> Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2009 17:26:00 -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: <4AAE79F0.2000506@vmware.com> 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/msg00418.txt.bz2 Marc Khouzam wrote: > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org >> [mailto:gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org] On Behalf Of Michael Snyder >> Sent: Monday, September 14, 2009 1:14 PM >> To: Marc Khouzam >> Cc: 'Hui Zhu'; 'gdb-patches ml' >> Subject: Re: PRecord sets memory even when it says it did not >> > ... > >> 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... > > I just ried and you are right, after stepi, > p a > shows the previous value. Right. So then, the actual memory in the child process was not changed. Some kind of local cache was changed, and when we did "stepi", we flushed the cache. As Greg Law mentioned, I seem to recall that there have been some recent changes in memory caching. Sounds to me as if the cache accepts the change before the target rejects it. Michael