From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 23637 invoked by alias); 14 Apr 2014 18:42:41 -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 23626 invoked by uid 89); 14 Apr 2014 18:42:39 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Mon, 14 Apr 2014 18:42:39 +0000 Received: from int-mx12.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx12.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.25]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id s3EIgZsX022960 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Mon, 14 Apr 2014 14:42:36 -0400 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.ams2.redhat.com [10.39.146.11]) by int-mx12.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id s3EIgXLt027448; Mon, 14 Apr 2014 14:42:34 -0400 Message-ID: <534C2C19.1010503@redhat.com> Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2014 18:42:00 -0000 From: Pedro Alves User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130625 Thunderbird/17.0.7 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Tom Tromey CC: Andrew Pinski , "gdb-patches@sourceware.org" Subject: Re: RFC: fix PR backtrace/15558 References: <87li6nghhz.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> <51B11E66.70102@redhat.com> <87mwqjw613.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> <87ha5vrdki.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <87ha5vrdki.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2014-04/txt/msg00280.txt.bz2 On 04/14/2014 07:06 PM, Tom Tromey wrote: >>>>>> "Andrew" == Andrew Pinski writes: > > Andrew> What happened to this patch, I don't see any reference to it latter > Andrew> on? I think I am running into the same problem as this patch is > Andrew> fixing. > > I never got back to fixing it according to Pedro's review. > > As I recall it isn't entirely trivial because for a good fix one would > need to expose some new Python methods for use by the frame filter code. Hmm. Not sure what you're thinking of. We discussed auditing all get_prev_frame uses and see if they are better replaced by get_prev_frame_1, but I don't think that should hold back fixing the inline frame unwinder. In the particular case of the inline frame unwinder, I believe we should simply be making inline_frame_this_id call get_prev_frame_1 instead of get_prev_frame. Let me give it a try. Hmm, your test doesn't trigger the bug for me as is, but I can trigger it in the CLI without Python. Ah, a "flushregs" is missing to force re-unwinding and recomputing the frame id. A sec and I'll post something. -- Pedro Alves