Re: Record segfault

Re: Record segfault

[Hui Zhu]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4630 bytes --]

Thanks Mark.

This reason of this issue is because we want close the old record
target with record_close that will be called by "push_target
(&record_ops);"
This line is after "Set the beneath function pointers."

So it make "record_beneath_to_insert_breakpoint" point to the record_insert_xxx.

In 2 months before, I post a patch that change this query to error.  I
post it again, wish you like it.

Thanks,
Hui

2009-09-12  Hui Zhu  <teawater@gmail.com>

	* record.c (record_open): Change "query" to "error".
	(cmd_record_stop): Change "query" to "printf_unfiltered".

---
 record.c |   14 +++++---------
 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)

--- a/record.c
+++ b/record.c
@@ -436,12 +436,8 @@ record_open (char *name, int from_tty)

   /* Check if record target is already running.  */
   if (current_target.to_stratum == record_stratum)
-    {
-      if (!nquery
-	  (_("Process record target already running, do you want to delete "
-	     "the old record log?")))
-	return;
-    }
+    error (_("Process record target already running.  Use \"record stop\" to "
+	     "stop record target first."));

   /*Reset the beneath function pointers.  */
   record_beneath_to_resume = NULL;
@@ -1157,9 +1153,9 @@ cmd_record_stop (char *args, int from_tt
 {
   if (current_target.to_stratum == record_stratum)
     {
-      if (!record_list || !from_tty || query (_("Delete recorded log and "
-	                                        "stop recording?")))
-	unpush_target (&record_ops);
+      unpush_target (&record_ops);
+      printf_unfiltered (_("Process record is stoped and all execution "
+                           "log is deleted.\n"));
     }
   else
     printf_unfiltered (_("Process record is not started.\n"));


On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 22:24, Marc Khouzam <marc.khouzam@ericsson.com> wrote:
> Hi Hui,
>
> I see a Segmentation fault when enabling Record when it is already on.
>
> GNU gdb (GDB) 6.8.50.20090910-cvs
> Copyright (C) 2009 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
> License GPLv3+: GNU GPL version 3 or later <http://gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html>
> This is free software: you are free to change and redistribute it.
> There is NO WARRANTY, to the extent permitted by law.  Type "show copying"
> and "show warranty" for details.
> This GDB was configured as "i686-pc-linux-gnu".
> For bug reporting instructions, please see:
> <http://www.gnu.org/software/gdb/bugs/>...
> Reading symbols from /local/lmckhou/testing/a.out...done.
> (gdb) l
> 1       int main()
> 2       {
> 3         int a = 0;
> 4         int b = 1;
> 5         return 0;
> 6       }
> (gdb) start
> Temporary breakpoint 1 at 0x8048415: file a.cc, line 3.
> Starting program: /local/lmckhou/testing/a.out
>
> Temporary breakpoint 1, main () at a.cc:3
> 3         int a = 0;
> (gdb) record
> (gdb) record
> Process record target already running, do you want to delete the old record log?(y or [n]) y
> (gdb) n
> Segmentation fault
>
> Here is the backtrace:
> (gdb) bt
> #0  0xb7d2e449 in _int_malloc () from /lib/libc.so.6
> #1  0xb7d2fce6 in malloc () from /lib/libc.so.6
> #2  0x0808f564 in xmalloc (size=16) at ../../src/gdb/utils.c:1229
> #3  0x0808e585 in make_my_cleanup2 (pmy_chain=0x84003e0, function=0x808e50b <restore_integer>, arg=0x8d0cf50, free_arg=0x808f63b <xfree>)
>    at ../../src/gdb/utils.c:349
> #4  0x0808e571 in make_cleanup_restore_integer (variable=0x8413190) at ../../src/gdb/utils.c:340
> #5  0x0822724e in record_gdb_operation_disable_set () at ../../src/gdb/record.c:414
> #6  0x082283aa in record_insert_breakpoint (gdbarch=0x848c7d8, bp_tgt=0x84e2aa4) at ../../src/gdb/record.c:1081
> #7  0x082283c2 in record_insert_breakpoint (gdbarch=0x848c7d8, bp_tgt=0x84e2aa4) at ../../src/gdb/record.c:1082
> #8  0x082283c2 in record_insert_breakpoint (gdbarch=0x848c7d8, bp_tgt=0x84e2aa4) at ../../src/gdb/record.c:1082
> #9  0x082283c2 in record_insert_breakpoint (gdbarch=0x848c7d8, bp_tgt=0x84e2aa4) at ../../src/gdb/record.c:1082
> #10 0x082283c2 in record_insert_breakpoint (gdbarch=0x848c7d8, bp_tgt=0x84e2aa4) at ../../src/gdb/record.c:1082
> #11 0x082283c2 in record_insert_breakpoint (gdbarch=0x848c7d8, bp_tgt=0x84e2aa4) at ../../src/gdb/record.c:1082
> #12 0x082283c2 in record_insert_breakpoint (gdbarch=0x848c7d8, bp_tgt=0x84e2aa4) at ../../src/gdb/record.c:1082
> #13 0x082283c2 in record_insert_breakpoint (gdbarch=0x848c7d8, bp_tgt=0x84e2aa4) at ../../src/gdb/record.c:1082
> ...
>
> This continues over and over and over ....
>
> Thanks
>
>

[-- Attachment #2: prec_remove_query.txt --]
[-- Type: text/plain, Size: 1166 bytes --]

---
 record.c |   14 +++++---------
 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)

--- a/record.c
+++ b/record.c
@@ -436,12 +436,8 @@ record_open (char *name, int from_tty)
 
   /* Check if record target is already running.  */
   if (current_target.to_stratum == record_stratum)
-    {
-      if (!nquery
-	  (_("Process record target already running, do you want to delete "
-	     "the old record log?")))
-	return;
-    }
+    error (_("Process record target already running.  Use \"record stop\" to "
+	     "stop record target first."));
 
   /*Reset the beneath function pointers.  */
   record_beneath_to_resume = NULL;
@@ -1157,9 +1153,9 @@ cmd_record_stop (char *args, int from_tt
 {
   if (current_target.to_stratum == record_stratum)
     {
-      if (!record_list || !from_tty || query (_("Delete recorded log and "
-	                                        "stop recording?")))
-	unpush_target (&record_ops);
+      unpush_target (&record_ops);
+      printf_unfiltered (_("Process record is stoped and all execution "
+                           "log is deleted.\n"));
     }
   else
     printf_unfiltered (_("Process record is not started.\n"));

Re: Record segfault

[Hui Zhu]

Hi Joel,

Sorry to disturb you.  Ping
http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2009-09/msg00357.html

Thanks,
Hui

On Sat, Sep 12, 2009 at 10:39, Hui Zhu <teawater@gmail.com> wrote:
> Thanks Mark.
>
> This reason of this issue is because we want close the old record
> target with record_close that will be called by "push_target
> (&record_ops);"
> This line is after "Set the beneath function pointers."
>
> So it make "record_beneath_to_insert_breakpoint" point to the record_insert_xxx.
>
> In 2 months before, I post a patch that change this query to error.  I
> post it again, wish you like it.
>
> Thanks,
> Hui
>
> 2009-09-12  Hui Zhu  <teawater@gmail.com>
>
>        * record.c (record_open): Change "query" to "error".
>        (cmd_record_stop): Change "query" to "printf_unfiltered".
>
> ---
>  record.c |   14 +++++---------
>  1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
>
> --- a/record.c
> +++ b/record.c
> @@ -436,12 +436,8 @@ record_open (char *name, int from_tty)
>
>   /* Check if record target is already running.  */
>   if (current_target.to_stratum == record_stratum)
> -    {
> -      if (!nquery
> -         (_("Process record target already running, do you want to delete "
> -            "the old record log?")))
> -       return;
> -    }
> +    error (_("Process record target already running.  Use \"record stop\" to "
> +            "stop record target first."));
>
>   /*Reset the beneath function pointers.  */
>   record_beneath_to_resume = NULL;
> @@ -1157,9 +1153,9 @@ cmd_record_stop (char *args, int from_tt
>  {
>   if (current_target.to_stratum == record_stratum)
>     {
> -      if (!record_list || !from_tty || query (_("Delete recorded log and "
> -                                               "stop recording?")))
> -       unpush_target (&record_ops);
> +      unpush_target (&record_ops);
> +      printf_unfiltered (_("Process record is stoped and all execution "
> +                           "log is deleted.\n"));
>     }
>   else
>     printf_unfiltered (_("Process record is not started.\n"));
>
>
> On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 22:24, Marc Khouzam <marc.khouzam@ericsson.com> wrote:
>> Hi Hui,
>>
>> I see a Segmentation fault when enabling Record when it is already on.
>>
>> GNU gdb (GDB) 6.8.50.20090910-cvs
>> Copyright (C) 2009 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
>> License GPLv3+: GNU GPL version 3 or later <http://gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html>
>> This is free software: you are free to change and redistribute it.
>> There is NO WARRANTY, to the extent permitted by law.  Type "show copying"
>> and "show warranty" for details.
>> This GDB was configured as "i686-pc-linux-gnu".
>> For bug reporting instructions, please see:
>> <http://www.gnu.org/software/gdb/bugs/>...
>> Reading symbols from /local/lmckhou/testing/a.out...done.
>> (gdb) l
>> 1       int main()
>> 2       {
>> 3         int a = 0;
>> 4         int b = 1;
>> 5         return 0;
>> 6       }
>> (gdb) start
>> Temporary breakpoint 1 at 0x8048415: file a.cc, line 3.
>> Starting program: /local/lmckhou/testing/a.out
>>
>> Temporary breakpoint 1, main () at a.cc:3
>> 3         int a = 0;
>> (gdb) record
>> (gdb) record
>> Process record target already running, do you want to delete the old record log?(y or [n]) y
>> (gdb) n
>> Segmentation fault
>>
>> Here is the backtrace:
>> (gdb) bt
>> #0  0xb7d2e449 in _int_malloc () from /lib/libc.so.6
>> #1  0xb7d2fce6 in malloc () from /lib/libc.so.6
>> #2  0x0808f564 in xmalloc (size=16) at ../../src/gdb/utils.c:1229
>> #3  0x0808e585 in make_my_cleanup2 (pmy_chain=0x84003e0, function=0x808e50b <restore_integer>, arg=0x8d0cf50, free_arg=0x808f63b <xfree>)
>>    at ../../src/gdb/utils.c:349
>> #4  0x0808e571 in make_cleanup_restore_integer (variable=0x8413190) at ../../src/gdb/utils.c:340
>> #5  0x0822724e in record_gdb_operation_disable_set () at ../../src/gdb/record.c:414
>> #6  0x082283aa in record_insert_breakpoint (gdbarch=0x848c7d8, bp_tgt=0x84e2aa4) at ../../src/gdb/record.c:1081
>> #7  0x082283c2 in record_insert_breakpoint (gdbarch=0x848c7d8, bp_tgt=0x84e2aa4) at ../../src/gdb/record.c:1082
>> #8  0x082283c2 in record_insert_breakpoint (gdbarch=0x848c7d8, bp_tgt=0x84e2aa4) at ../../src/gdb/record.c:1082
>> #9  0x082283c2 in record_insert_breakpoint (gdbarch=0x848c7d8, bp_tgt=0x84e2aa4) at ../../src/gdb/record.c:1082
>> #10 0x082283c2 in record_insert_breakpoint (gdbarch=0x848c7d8, bp_tgt=0x84e2aa4) at ../../src/gdb/record.c:1082
>> #11 0x082283c2 in record_insert_breakpoint (gdbarch=0x848c7d8, bp_tgt=0x84e2aa4) at ../../src/gdb/record.c:1082
>> #12 0x082283c2 in record_insert_breakpoint (gdbarch=0x848c7d8, bp_tgt=0x84e2aa4) at ../../src/gdb/record.c:1082
>> #13 0x082283c2 in record_insert_breakpoint (gdbarch=0x848c7d8, bp_tgt=0x84e2aa4) at ../../src/gdb/record.c:1082
>> ...
>>
>> This continues over and over and over ....
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>>
>

Re: Record segfault

[Michael Snyder]

This seems fine to me.  Please check it into the main branch,
but don't add it to the release branch unless Joel says it's OK.

Michael

Hui Zhu wrote:
> Hi Joel,
> 
> Sorry to disturb you.  Ping
> http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2009-09/msg00357.html
> 
> Thanks,
> Hui
> 
> On Sat, Sep 12, 2009 at 10:39, Hui Zhu <teawater@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Thanks Mark.
>>
>> This reason of this issue is because we want close the old record
>> target with record_close that will be called by "push_target
>> (&record_ops);"
>> This line is after "Set the beneath function pointers."
>>
>> So it make "record_beneath_to_insert_breakpoint" point to the record_insert_xxx.
>>
>> In 2 months before, I post a patch that change this query to error.  I
>> post it again, wish you like it.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Hui
>>
>> 2009-09-12  Hui Zhu  <teawater@gmail.com>
>>
>>        * record.c (record_open): Change "query" to "error".
>>        (cmd_record_stop): Change "query" to "printf_unfiltered".
>>
>> ---
>>  record.c |   14 +++++---------
>>  1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
>>
>> --- a/record.c
>> +++ b/record.c
>> @@ -436,12 +436,8 @@ record_open (char *name, int from_tty)
>>
>>   /* Check if record target is already running.  */
>>   if (current_target.to_stratum == record_stratum)
>> -    {
>> -      if (!nquery
>> -         (_("Process record target already running, do you want to delete "
>> -            "the old record log?")))
>> -       return;
>> -    }
>> +    error (_("Process record target already running.  Use \"record stop\" to "
>> +            "stop record target first."));
>>
>>   /*Reset the beneath function pointers.  */
>>   record_beneath_to_resume = NULL;
>> @@ -1157,9 +1153,9 @@ cmd_record_stop (char *args, int from_tt
>>  {
>>   if (current_target.to_stratum == record_stratum)
>>     {
>> -      if (!record_list || !from_tty || query (_("Delete recorded log and "
>> -                                               "stop recording?")))
>> -       unpush_target (&record_ops);
>> +      unpush_target (&record_ops);
>> +      printf_unfiltered (_("Process record is stoped and all execution "
>> +                           "log is deleted.\n"));
>>     }
>>   else
>>     printf_unfiltered (_("Process record is not started.\n"));
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 22:24, Marc Khouzam <marc.khouzam@ericsson.com> wrote:
>>> Hi Hui,
>>>
>>> I see a Segmentation fault when enabling Record when it is already on.
>>>
>>> GNU gdb (GDB) 6.8.50.20090910-cvs
>>> Copyright (C) 2009 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
>>> License GPLv3+: GNU GPL version 3 or later <http://gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html>
>>> This is free software: you are free to change and redistribute it.
>>> There is NO WARRANTY, to the extent permitted by law.  Type "show copying"
>>> and "show warranty" for details.
>>> This GDB was configured as "i686-pc-linux-gnu".
>>> For bug reporting instructions, please see:
>>> <http://www.gnu.org/software/gdb/bugs/>...
>>> Reading symbols from /local/lmckhou/testing/a.out...done.
>>> (gdb) l
>>> 1       int main()
>>> 2       {
>>> 3         int a = 0;
>>> 4         int b = 1;
>>> 5         return 0;
>>> 6       }
>>> (gdb) start
>>> Temporary breakpoint 1 at 0x8048415: file a.cc, line 3.
>>> Starting program: /local/lmckhou/testing/a.out
>>>
>>> Temporary breakpoint 1, main () at a.cc:3
>>> 3         int a = 0;
>>> (gdb) record
>>> (gdb) record
>>> Process record target already running, do you want to delete the old record log?(y or [n]) y
>>> (gdb) n
>>> Segmentation fault
>>>
>>> Here is the backtrace:
>>> (gdb) bt
>>> #0  0xb7d2e449 in _int_malloc () from /lib/libc.so.6
>>> #1  0xb7d2fce6 in malloc () from /lib/libc.so.6
>>> #2  0x0808f564 in xmalloc (size=16) at ../../src/gdb/utils.c:1229
>>> #3  0x0808e585 in make_my_cleanup2 (pmy_chain=0x84003e0, function=0x808e50b <restore_integer>, arg=0x8d0cf50, free_arg=0x808f63b <xfree>)
>>>    at ../../src/gdb/utils.c:349
>>> #4  0x0808e571 in make_cleanup_restore_integer (variable=0x8413190) at ../../src/gdb/utils.c:340
>>> #5  0x0822724e in record_gdb_operation_disable_set () at ../../src/gdb/record.c:414
>>> #6  0x082283aa in record_insert_breakpoint (gdbarch=0x848c7d8, bp_tgt=0x84e2aa4) at ../../src/gdb/record.c:1081
>>> #7  0x082283c2 in record_insert_breakpoint (gdbarch=0x848c7d8, bp_tgt=0x84e2aa4) at ../../src/gdb/record.c:1082
>>> #8  0x082283c2 in record_insert_breakpoint (gdbarch=0x848c7d8, bp_tgt=0x84e2aa4) at ../../src/gdb/record.c:1082
>>> #9  0x082283c2 in record_insert_breakpoint (gdbarch=0x848c7d8, bp_tgt=0x84e2aa4) at ../../src/gdb/record.c:1082
>>> #10 0x082283c2 in record_insert_breakpoint (gdbarch=0x848c7d8, bp_tgt=0x84e2aa4) at ../../src/gdb/record.c:1082
>>> #11 0x082283c2 in record_insert_breakpoint (gdbarch=0x848c7d8, bp_tgt=0x84e2aa4) at ../../src/gdb/record.c:1082
>>> #12 0x082283c2 in record_insert_breakpoint (gdbarch=0x848c7d8, bp_tgt=0x84e2aa4) at ../../src/gdb/record.c:1082
>>> #13 0x082283c2 in record_insert_breakpoint (gdbarch=0x848c7d8, bp_tgt=0x84e2aa4) at ../../src/gdb/record.c:1082
>>> ...
>>>
>>> This continues over and over and over ....
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>>
>>>

Re: Record segfault

[Hui Zhu]

Thanks Michael, Checked in to cvs-head.

Hui

On Sun, Sep 27, 2009 at 06:33, Michael Snyder <msnyder@vmware.com> wrote:
> This seems fine to me.  Please check it into the main branch,
> but don't add it to the release branch unless Joel says it's OK.
>
> Michael
>
> Hui Zhu wrote:
>>
>> Hi Joel,
>>
>> Sorry to disturb you.  Ping
>> http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2009-09/msg00357.html
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Hui
>>
>> On Sat, Sep 12, 2009 at 10:39, Hui Zhu <teawater@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Thanks Mark.
>>>
>>> This reason of this issue is because we want close the old record
>>> target with record_close that will be called by "push_target
>>> (&record_ops);"
>>> This line is after "Set the beneath function pointers."
>>>
>>> So it make "record_beneath_to_insert_breakpoint" point to the
>>> record_insert_xxx.
>>>
>>> In 2 months before, I post a patch that change this query to error.  I
>>> post it again, wish you like it.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Hui
>>>
>>> 2009-09-12  Hui Zhu  <teawater@gmail.com>
>>>
>>>       * record.c (record_open): Change "query" to "error".
>>>       (cmd_record_stop): Change "query" to "printf_unfiltered".
>>>
>>> ---
>>>  record.c |   14 +++++---------
>>>  1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> --- a/record.c
>>> +++ b/record.c
>>> @@ -436,12 +436,8 @@ record_open (char *name, int from_tty)
>>>
>>>  /* Check if record target is already running.  */
>>>  if (current_target.to_stratum == record_stratum)
>>> -    {
>>> -      if (!nquery
>>> -         (_("Process record target already running, do you want to
>>> delete "
>>> -            "the old record log?")))
>>> -       return;
>>> -    }
>>> +    error (_("Process record target already running.  Use \"record
>>> stop\" to "
>>> +            "stop record target first."));
>>>
>>>  /*Reset the beneath function pointers.  */
>>>  record_beneath_to_resume = NULL;
>>> @@ -1157,9 +1153,9 @@ cmd_record_stop (char *args, int from_tt
>>>  {
>>>  if (current_target.to_stratum == record_stratum)
>>>    {
>>> -      if (!record_list || !from_tty || query (_("Delete recorded log and
>>> "
>>> -                                               "stop recording?")))
>>> -       unpush_target (&record_ops);
>>> +      unpush_target (&record_ops);
>>> +      printf_unfiltered (_("Process record is stoped and all execution "
>>> +                           "log is deleted.\n"));
>>>    }
>>>  else
>>>    printf_unfiltered (_("Process record is not started.\n"));
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 22:24, Marc Khouzam <marc.khouzam@ericsson.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi Hui,
>>>>
>>>> I see a Segmentation fault when enabling Record when it is already on.
>>>>
>>>> GNU gdb (GDB) 6.8.50.20090910-cvs
>>>> Copyright (C) 2009 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
>>>> License GPLv3+: GNU GPL version 3 or later
>>>> <http://gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html>
>>>> This is free software: you are free to change and redistribute it.
>>>> There is NO WARRANTY, to the extent permitted by law.  Type "show
>>>> copying"
>>>> and "show warranty" for details.
>>>> This GDB was configured as "i686-pc-linux-gnu".
>>>> For bug reporting instructions, please see:
>>>> <http://www.gnu.org/software/gdb/bugs/>...
>>>> Reading symbols from /local/lmckhou/testing/a.out...done.
>>>> (gdb) l
>>>> 1       int main()
>>>> 2       {
>>>> 3         int a = 0;
>>>> 4         int b = 1;
>>>> 5         return 0;
>>>> 6       }
>>>> (gdb) start
>>>> Temporary breakpoint 1 at 0x8048415: file a.cc, line 3.
>>>> Starting program: /local/lmckhou/testing/a.out
>>>>
>>>> Temporary breakpoint 1, main () at a.cc:3
>>>> 3         int a = 0;
>>>> (gdb) record
>>>> (gdb) record
>>>> Process record target already running, do you want to delete the old
>>>> record log?(y or [n]) y
>>>> (gdb) n
>>>> Segmentation fault
>>>>
>>>> Here is the backtrace:
>>>> (gdb) bt
>>>> #0  0xb7d2e449 in _int_malloc () from /lib/libc.so.6
>>>> #1  0xb7d2fce6 in malloc () from /lib/libc.so.6
>>>> #2  0x0808f564 in xmalloc (size=16) at ../../src/gdb/utils.c:1229
>>>> #3  0x0808e585 in make_my_cleanup2 (pmy_chain=0x84003e0,
>>>> function=0x808e50b <restore_integer>, arg=0x8d0cf50, free_arg=0x808f63b
>>>> <xfree>)
>>>>   at ../../src/gdb/utils.c:349
>>>> #4  0x0808e571 in make_cleanup_restore_integer (variable=0x8413190) at
>>>> ../../src/gdb/utils.c:340
>>>> #5  0x0822724e in record_gdb_operation_disable_set () at
>>>> ../../src/gdb/record.c:414
>>>> #6  0x082283aa in record_insert_breakpoint (gdbarch=0x848c7d8,
>>>> bp_tgt=0x84e2aa4) at ../../src/gdb/record.c:1081
>>>> #7  0x082283c2 in record_insert_breakpoint (gdbarch=0x848c7d8,
>>>> bp_tgt=0x84e2aa4) at ../../src/gdb/record.c:1082
>>>> #8  0x082283c2 in record_insert_breakpoint (gdbarch=0x848c7d8,
>>>> bp_tgt=0x84e2aa4) at ../../src/gdb/record.c:1082
>>>> #9  0x082283c2 in record_insert_breakpoint (gdbarch=0x848c7d8,
>>>> bp_tgt=0x84e2aa4) at ../../src/gdb/record.c:1082
>>>> #10 0x082283c2 in record_insert_breakpoint (gdbarch=0x848c7d8,
>>>> bp_tgt=0x84e2aa4) at ../../src/gdb/record.c:1082
>>>> #11 0x082283c2 in record_insert_breakpoint (gdbarch=0x848c7d8,
>>>> bp_tgt=0x84e2aa4) at ../../src/gdb/record.c:1082
>>>> #12 0x082283c2 in record_insert_breakpoint (gdbarch=0x848c7d8,
>>>> bp_tgt=0x84e2aa4) at ../../src/gdb/record.c:1082
>>>> #13 0x082283c2 in record_insert_breakpoint (gdbarch=0x848c7d8,
>>>> bp_tgt=0x84e2aa4) at ../../src/gdb/record.c:1082
>>>> ...
>>>>
>>>> This continues over and over and over ....
>>>>
>>>> Thanks
>>>>
>>>>
>
>

Re: Record segfault

[Joel Brobecker]

Michael,

> This seems fine to me.  Please check it into the main branch,
> but don't add it to the release branch unless Joel says it's OK.

It seems like a worthwhile patch to have, since it fixes a SEGV
(right?). Are you confident about the patch? It seems relatively
straightforward. My only comment is that it eliminates a query
when the user types a record stop - is that desirable? I guess
it is: What are the chances of someone typing "record stop" and
not wanting to stop the recording session?

In other words: I am ok with the patch being applied to the branch.
If you are, can you give Hui the go-ahead?

-- 
Joel

Re: Record segfault

[Michael Snyder]

Joel Brobecker wrote:
> Michael,
> 
>> This seems fine to me.  Please check it into the main branch,
>> but don't add it to the release branch unless Joel says it's OK.
> 
> It seems like a worthwhile patch to have, since it fixes a SEGV
> (right?). Are you confident about the patch? It seems relatively
> straightforward. My only comment is that it eliminates a query
> when the user types a record stop - is that desirable? I guess
> it is: What are the chances of someone typing "record stop" and
> not wanting to stop the recording session?
> 
> In other words: I am ok with the patch being applied to the branch.
> If you are, can you give Hui the go-ahead?

OK, then, "go ahead", Hui.   ;-)

Re: Record segfault

[Hui Zhu]

Checked in to 7.0 branch.

Thanks for your help, Joel and Michael.

Hui

On Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 02:16, Michael Snyder <msnyder@vmware.com> wrote:
> Joel Brobecker wrote:
>>
>> Michael,
>>
>>> This seems fine to me.  Please check it into the main branch,
>>> but don't add it to the release branch unless Joel says it's OK.
>>
>> It seems like a worthwhile patch to have, since it fixes a SEGV
>> (right?). Are you confident about the patch? It seems relatively
>> straightforward. My only comment is that it eliminates a query
>> when the user types a record stop - is that desirable? I guess
>> it is: What are the chances of someone typing "record stop" and
>> not wanting to stop the recording session?
>>
>> In other words: I am ok with the patch being applied to the branch.
>> If you are, can you give Hui the go-ahead?
>
> OK, then, "go ahead", Hui.   ;-)
>

Re: Record segfault

[Hui Zhu]

On Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 10:05, Hui Zhu <teawater@gmail.com> wrote:
> Checked in to 7.0 branch.
>
> Thanks for your help, Joel and Michael.

Ah, sorry for it.  And thanks a lot, Marc.  :)

Hui

>
> Hui
>
> On Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 02:16, Michael Snyder <msnyder@vmware.com> wrote:
>> Joel Brobecker wrote:
>>>
>>> Michael,
>>>
>>>> This seems fine to me.  Please check it into the main branch,
>>>> but don't add it to the release branch unless Joel says it's OK.
>>>
>>> It seems like a worthwhile patch to have, since it fixes a SEGV
>>> (right?). Are you confident about the patch? It seems relatively
>>> straightforward. My only comment is that it eliminates a query
>>> when the user types a record stop - is that desirable? I guess
>>> it is: What are the chances of someone typing "record stop" and
>>> not wanting to stop the recording session?
>>>
>>> In other words: I am ok with the patch being applied to the branch.
>>> If you are, can you give Hui the go-ahead?
>>
>> OK, then, "go ahead", Hui.   ;-)
>>
>

Re: Record segfault

[Hui Zhu]

> It seems like a worthwhile patch to have, since it fixes a SEGV
> (right?). Are you confident about the patch? It seems relatively
> straightforward. My only comment is that it eliminates a query
> when the user types a record stop - is that desirable? I guess
> it is: What are the chances of someone typing "record stop" and
> not wanting to stop the recording session?

Sorry that it far away from the current issue that we want fix.

It remove the query in "record stop" because I think the user will
remember stop will remove the log.  They don't need query each time.

Thanks,
Hui