From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 82442 invoked by alias); 3 Mar 2015 15:49:01 -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 82433 invoked by uid 89); 3 Mar 2015 15:49:01 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD 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 (AES256-GCM-SHA384 encrypted) ESMTPS; Tue, 03 Mar 2015 15:49:00 +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 t23FmwqM015047 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=FAIL); Tue, 3 Mar 2015 10:48:58 -0500 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 t23FmvWP015578; Tue, 3 Mar 2015 10:48:57 -0500 Message-ID: <54F5D7E8.4080000@redhat.com> Date: Tue, 03 Mar 2015 15:49:00 -0000 From: Pedro Alves User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.3.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Metzger, Markus T" CC: "gdb-patches@sourceware.org" Subject: Re: [PATCH] btrace: avoid tp != NULL assertion References: <1423473902-2286-1-git-send-email-markus.t.metzger@intel.com> <54F4DF9D.3060400@redhat.com> <54F5A12F.9000702@redhat.com> <54F5BA0B.2000106@redhat.com> <54F5BF28.5030108@redhat.com> <54F5D263.4080008@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2015-03/txt/msg00092.txt.bz2 On 03/03/2015 03:37 PM, Metzger, Markus T wrote: > I think that was a misunderstanding. The assertion is caught by several > gdb.btrace tests when run with 32-bit GDB. > > I thought you were referring to the badness in my patch that would > result in GDB asking for registers in a wrong process. Ah. Alright, glad we're sorted. :-) Thanks, Pedro Alves