From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from simark.ca by simark.ca with LMTP id 75UtBvp3I2FdKwAAWB0awg (envelope-from ) for ; Mon, 23 Aug 2021 06:27:06 -0400 Received: by simark.ca (Postfix, from userid 112) id 08D491EE18; Mon, 23 Aug 2021 06:27:06 -0400 (EDT) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on simark.ca X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.6 required=5.0 tests=MAILING_LIST_MULTI, RDNS_DYNAMIC autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from sourceware.org (ip-8-43-85-97.sourceware.org [8.43.85.97]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by simark.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4A50B1E813 for ; Mon, 23 Aug 2021 06:27:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: from server2.sourceware.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 85F75385780B for ; Mon, 23 Aug 2021 10:27:04 +0000 (GMT) Received: from mail-wr1-f42.google.com (mail-wr1-f42.google.com [209.85.221.42]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 490403858D35 for ; Mon, 23 Aug 2021 10:26:53 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org 490403858D35 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=palves.net Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=gmail.com Received: by mail-wr1-f42.google.com with SMTP id z9so25450732wrh.10 for ; Mon, 23 Aug 2021 03:26:53 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:from:to:cc:references:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=XzxR579RD3QhE4mL2AH9OEDmEm9FxzbI7gUc3wCtdvs=; b=Q80pc3/Ca5j5nQqNXE0EQzYvE3918KWEHDT/6lucV9cNNhFchvTOJJhEeDZQ/63z5p 3rT3iBQ+qRyuI2vHSOBceF0fg0MeddzJ4kHKW11n8ma8IpsiqQ0Cj1WjUfr7CwXkJncX aROoHweqjNexsSSuu/UKXnBlOyoirlqaId8Jftl1aXUS+wG6d2G6Q36xUBczLW90/BNE p/40j+uQOmtRLyoyD2BrePtsw0sDFCf1Kb4KHboIfKsQQeT8+jIgGZs6T5qBhH7XT0EC dH9KgKPVhNkLotCsuF/1U42/7BNED5NktKgGDNxLnF0FI9dO4hCao1NBfAWw7j7asInR IuZA== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530tFjjBGzBwxe5Kzhg3qkqoWOkc2Fvn/yV61WLJXBjo6blVKW2U VmN2+s8PlSCgps1n+GGC6+U= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJykoYc+hgLr6KrqiT9u4RQxxV4MZObuyA9mhNGDR5pGZ9syapAr2pwllUub/FPgCL3a0/F6Cw== X-Received: by 2002:a5d:4ec5:: with SMTP id s5mr12689769wrv.267.1629714412227; Mon, 23 Aug 2021 03:26:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ?IPv6:2001:8a0:f932:6a00:46bc:d03b:7b3a:2227? ([2001:8a0:f932:6a00:46bc:d03b:7b3a:2227]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id p14sm17973000wmi.42.2021.08.23.03.26.50 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 23 Aug 2021 03:26:51 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: [PATCHv5] gdb: prevent an assertion when computing the frame_id for an inline frame From: Pedro Alves To: Andrew Burgess , gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <20210727101003.2910993-1-andrew.burgess@embecosm.com> <20210809154122.3468792-1-andrew.burgess@embecosm.com> <20210823094159.GC2581@embecosm.com> Message-ID: <87ce1eab-aba1-7282-97cd-89233e3d7f54@palves.net> Date: Mon, 23 Aug 2021 11:26:49 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.13.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20210823094159.GC2581@embecosm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-BeenThere: gdb-patches@sourceware.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Gdb-patches mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: gdb-patches-bounces+public-inbox=simark.ca@sourceware.org Sender: "Gdb-patches" Hi Andrew, Sorry I hadn't responded yet. I was out on vacation a few weeks ago, and thought I would be able to get to this once I got back, but I got immediately pulled to a tight internal deadline instead. FWIW, I've been very frustrated about failing to reply to you. I should be able to take a look this week, though. On 2021-08-23 10:41 a.m., Andrew Burgess wrote: > Ping! > > Simon, what are your thoughts on this approach? From what I recall of > our discussion on IRC your concerns with my original patch were that > after my change the function implementation no longer matched with the > function name, this made GDB's internal APIs confusing and > inconsistent. > > With this patch I've tried to avoid this by renaming the functions to > hopefully make the API clearer. > > I'm just guessing, but I suspect it was the use of exceptions that > Pedro wasn't happy with, so maybe if you're happy with this latest > patch we could merge this change, given Pedro already approved the > pre-exception patch. I don't recall the discussion with Simon, but yes, use custom exceptions for this doesn't sound great to me. Let me take a better look.