From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 18128 invoked by alias); 15 Feb 2012 12:17:53 -0000 Received: (qmail 18105 invoked by uid 22791); 15 Feb 2012 12:17:49 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.8 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,SPF_HELO_PASS,TW_NV,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Wed, 15 Feb 2012 12:17:34 +0000 Received: from int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.12]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q1FCHJ08028728 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Wed, 15 Feb 2012 07:17:19 -0500 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.9.1]) by int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q1FCHIRm018719; Wed, 15 Feb 2012 07:17:18 -0500 Message-ID: <4F3BA24E.8070009@redhat.com> Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2012 12:57:00 -0000 From: Pedro Alves User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:10.0) Gecko/20120131 Thunderbird/10.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Tristan Gingold CC: "gdb-patches@sourceware.org ml" , Rupp Douglas Subject: Re: RFA: New port: ia64-hp-openvms (3/3) - ia64-vms-tdep.c References: <6AD2487F-8409-4F4E-93A6-9DB7FD195E71@adacore.com> <190A7167-B038-4EC0-82FD-815B306B4975@adacore.com> <4D8B23BF-A8D1-4698-8539-DF953219948B@adacore.com> <4F3A9ED3.7090408@redhat.com> <3F9413FC-FB03-4970-B9FB-C628E5663826@adacore.com> In-Reply-To: <3F9413FC-FB03-4970-B9FB-C628E5663826@adacore.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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: 2012-02/txt/msg00297.txt.bz2 On 02/15/2012 08:05 AM, Tristan Gingold wrote: > > On Feb 14, 2012, at 6:50 PM, Pedro Alves wrote: >>> + info_len = extract_unsigned_integer (buf + 0, 4, byte_order); >>> + pi->unwind_info_size = 8 * info_len; >>> + >>> + /* Read info. */ >>> + pi->unwind_info = malloc (pi->unwind_info_size); >> >> xmalloc > > Humm, do we want to exit abruptly in case of memory error ? Note that we test the return status. Ah, missed that. Fine with me to stay with malloc. What does libunwind do when one returns -UNW_ENOMEM? Does GDB end up recovering correctly, or do we end up busted anyway? > (OTOH, if malloc fails here, it is likely that the next xmalloc will too). Right... -- Pedro Alves