From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 26723 invoked by alias); 12 Mar 2012 18:13:01 -0000 Received: (qmail 26709 invoked by uid 22791); 12 Mar 2012 18:13:00 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.7 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,SPF_HELO_PASS,TW_GJ,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; Mon, 12 Mar 2012 18:12:48 +0000 Received: from int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.11]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q2CICj2A019416 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Mon, 12 Mar 2012 14:12:45 -0400 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.9.1]) by int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q2CIChxq022382; Mon, 12 Mar 2012 14:12:44 -0400 Message-ID: <4F5E3C9B.8070608@redhat.com> Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2012 18:13:00 -0000 From: Pedro Alves User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:10.0.1) Gecko/20120216 Thunderbird/10.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Keith Seitz CC: "Maciej W. Rozycki" , Pedro Alves , gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] remote: Fix a crash on longjmp breakpoint removal References: <4F57C92F.7010501@redhat.com> <4F57C9A2.7050809@redhat.com> <4F5ADD06.5070905@redhat.com> <4F5AE26F.8050800@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <4F5AE26F.8050800@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 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: 2012-03/txt/msg00408.txt.bz2 On 03/10/2012 05:11 AM, Keith Seitz wrote: > On 03/09/2012 08:48 PM, Keith Seitz wrote: >> On 03/09/2012 06:55 PM, Maciej W. Rozycki wrote: >>> Keith, would you care updating your test case then? I'm going to be away >>> for two weeks and won't be able to look into it any sooner. >> >> Sure thing. > > I've changed the test a little bit to safeguard against looping forever. Pedro, does this look acceptable? > I was going to say there's really nothing target specific in the test, and that thus it's best to put it under gdb.base/ (well I just did :-) ), but then I remembered Tom's quite new gdb.base/nextoverexit.exp test that tests the exact same (albeit in an even simpler form). I've checked out a tree from just before my fix, and run it against nextoverexit.exp w/ gdbserver (didn't exist at the time, so I copied it over), and indeed GDB crashes. So we don't really need this new test; it's redundant. Sorry for not realizing this before you went for the trouble of updating the test... :-/ -- Pedro Alves