From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 115426 invoked by alias); 25 Oct 2016 19:41:24 -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 115398 invoked by uid 89); 25 Oct 2016 19:41:22 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy=appending X-HELO: relay1.mentorg.com Received: from relay1.mentorg.com (HELO relay1.mentorg.com) (192.94.38.131) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Tue, 25 Oct 2016 19:41:19 +0000 Received: from svr-orw-mbx-03.mgc.mentorg.com ([147.34.90.203]) by relay1.mentorg.com with esmtp id 1bz7b2-0006Jl-PI from Luis_Gustavo@mentor.com ; Tue, 25 Oct 2016 12:41:16 -0700 Received: from [172.30.1.187] (147.34.91.1) by svr-orw-mbx-03.mgc.mentorg.com (147.34.90.203) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1210.3; Tue, 25 Oct 2016 12:41:12 -0700 Reply-To: Luis Machado , Luis Machado Subject: Re: [PATCH, v4] PR 20569, segv in follow_exec References: <1477415521-22010-1-git-send-email-lgustavo@codesourcery.com> <645baeb5-e813-d97d-fcd0-d0c7ea7bf5ba@redhat.com> <3f775c2e-6519-40c3-78da-7da06a940bce@codesourcery.com> <90c686ab-090e-fead-5a72-a5d507b50ab7@redhat.com> <3ecde577-fd7b-78ed-3d41-2777301cd390@codesourcery.com> To: Pedro Alves , CC: From: Luis Machado Message-ID: <87c593b9-b811-d104-65fc-4225d46d5581@codesourcery.com> Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2016 19:41:00 -0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.3.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <3ecde577-fd7b-78ed-3d41-2777301cd390@codesourcery.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-ClientProxiedBy: svr-orw-mbx-01.mgc.mentorg.com (147.34.90.201) To svr-orw-mbx-03.mgc.mentorg.com (147.34.90.203) X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2016-10/txt/msg00711.txt.bz2 On 10/25/2016 01:30 PM, Luis Machado wrote: > On 10/25/2016 01:20 PM, Pedro Alves wrote: >> On 10/25/2016 07:15 PM, Luis Machado wrote: >> >>> Before i go ahead and adjust this even more, what's your plan and ETA >>> for the above? >> >> I'll try to post this today. >> > > Sounds good. > >>> This is disturbing more code as we try to consolidade >>> slightly different functions into a single one in order to make things a >>> bit more clean. But i'm afraid this is besides the point of the original >>> patch itself? >>> >>> I just want to understand what's the end goal, because the scope seems >>> to be changing slightly with each iteration. :-) >> >> No, the scope has not changed at all. Your original version duplicated >> a large chunk of code, and then the attempt to refactor things did it >> incorrectly. Still the same scope, but the patch as is, is buggy. >> >> Between accepted duplicated code, and fixing the patch, I take the >> latter. > > Fine by me. > > Thanks, > Luis Going back to the flags problem, maybe adding "add_flags" as argument to symbol_file_add_main_1, just like symbol_file_add, and appending those flags to the existing flag variable there would make things work?