From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 10227 invoked by alias); 8 Jun 2010 16:52:17 -0000 Received: (qmail 10219 invoked by uid 22791); 8 Jun 2010 16:52:16 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD 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; Tue, 08 Jun 2010 16:52:12 +0000 Received: from mailhost2.vmware.com (mailhost2.vmware.com [10.16.67.167]) by smtp-outbound-1.vmware.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4FC4A13084; Tue, 8 Jun 2010 09:52:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from msnyder-server.eng.vmware.com (promd-2s-dhcp138.eng.vmware.com [10.20.124.138]) by mailhost2.vmware.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3E9088E7DF; Tue, 8 Jun 2010 09:52:11 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4C0E753A.4000709@vmware.com> Date: Tue, 08 Jun 2010 16:52:00 -0000 From: Michael Snyder User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.22 (X11/20090609) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Pedro Alves CC: "gdb-patches@sourceware.org" Subject: Re: [RFA] fix crasher on detach command References: <4C0D3636.8040206@vmware.com> <201006072012.18043.pedro@codesourcery.com> <4C0D8AA7.5090200@vmware.com> <201006081359.09712.pedro@codesourcery.com> In-Reply-To: <201006081359.09712.pedro@codesourcery.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15; 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: 2010-06/txt/msg00207.txt.bz2 Pedro Alves wrote: > On Tuesday 08 June 2010 01:11:19, Michael Snyder wrote: >> Pedro Alves wrote: >> >>> To be a bit clearer -- >>> >>> you've said that the pid was left as 42000 (I assume you meant >>> inferior_ptid, but that find_inferior no longer finds that inferior. >>> Where is the current inferior getting it's pid cleared out? Why >>> aren't we clearing inferior_ptid as well? >> >> OK, right. >> >> remote_close calls discard_all_inferiors -- it should also >> set inferior_ptid to null_ptid at the same time. >> How's this patch? > > Yes, that's better. That patch is okay. > Thanks, committed.