From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 23016 invoked by alias); 22 Nov 2013 17:06:28 -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 23005 invoked by uid 89); 22 Nov 2013 17:06:27 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.7 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RDNS_NONE,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS autolearn=no version=3.3.2 X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Received: from Unknown (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Fri, 22 Nov 2013 17:06:26 +0000 Received: from int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.23]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id rAMH6Jnx000354 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK) for ; Fri, 22 Nov 2013 12:06:19 -0500 Received: from barimba (ovpn-113-124.phx2.redhat.com [10.3.113.124]) by int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id rAMH6HHw015964 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Fri, 22 Nov 2013 12:06:18 -0500 From: Tom Tromey To: Pedro Alves Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] avoid infinite loop with bad debuginfo References: <1384375873-32160-1-git-send-email-tromey@redhat.com> <1384375873-32160-2-git-send-email-tromey@redhat.com> <52850730.1060109@redhat.com> <87d2lxpo1l.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> <528F6AC0.6020509@redhat.com> Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2013 17:16:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <528F6AC0.6020509@redhat.com> (Pedro Alves's message of "Fri, 22 Nov 2013 14:31:28 +0000") Message-ID: <87zjowcqnq.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-SW-Source: 2013-11/txt/msg00690.txt.bz2 >>>>> "Pedro" == Pedro Alves writes: Tom> Barf. I have a memory of actually writing that. False memory I guess. Tom> Sigh. Pedro> Don't sigh. :-) I now believe the regnum check would be wrong. Haha, then it is double wrong, since I thought I wrote it that way :) Pedro> This shouldn't return any register of the same frame. Pedro> WDYT of adjusting the patch like this? It looks good to me. Please put it in. I tried current git master with my original test case and I see it is fixed. So, thanks :) Tom