From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 1169 invoked by alias); 6 May 2013 21:08:36 -0000 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 Received: (qmail 1156 invoked by uid 89); 6 May 2013 21:08:34 -0000 X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-8.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_THREADED,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_W,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_WL,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.84/v0.84-167-ge50287c) with ESMTP; Mon, 06 May 2013 21:08:34 +0000 Received: from int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.24]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r46L8WLL021232 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Mon, 6 May 2013 17:08:32 -0400 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.ams2.redhat.com [10.39.146.11]) by int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r46L8U6U004613; Mon, 6 May 2013 17:08:31 -0400 Message-ID: <51881BCD.7070009@redhat.com> Date: Mon, 06 May 2013 21:08:00 -0000 From: Pedro Alves User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130311 Thunderbird/17.0.4 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Sergio Durigan Junior CC: GDB Patches , "Dr. David Alan Gilbert" Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix for PR 15413 (segfault when completing "condition" for pending bp) References: <5187ED3A.8000108@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2013-05/txt/msg00156.txt.bz2 On 05/06/2013 09:57 PM, Sergio Durigan Junior wrote: > So, if I understood your brain dump correctly, you're suggesting that > the "condition" command shouldn't complete multiple locations at all, > since the condition is inherent to the breakpoint, not to the > location(s). Is that right? I will submit a patch soon. Yes. The patch to do that should be quite trivial, mostly just removing/simplifying code, and it should fix the segfault too as consequence, so I'd prefer focusing on a patch that did that first (over trying to fix the existing bogus multi-location code), > [OTOH, I guess it would make more sense if the condition were a location > property.] and leave this for a separate discussion. The patch should then be quite safe for 7.6 backporting too. -- Pedro Alves