It seems that you did not change the code as discussed here:
https://sourceware.org/pipermail/gdb-patches/2026-May/227699.html
Would you mind sharing the reason for that?
In my opinion this is necessary.
I blame the weekend. Leave on friday thinking "I'll do it on monday", arrive
on monday thinking "I did it last friday".
I made sure to make the change now. Added the asserts that the length is
0 in the move operator, which means we won't need to worry about freeing
the memory.
But isn't it possible that "len > sizeof (u.buf)" or at least "len > 0" at this point ?
Not really. Since we can't have copying of entries, if an actual
entry was stored in the variable that is receiving a move, we lose
information on an entry or we forgot to clear the incomplete
instruction (which means we never added it to the history). The code
is built for this to be the case, so I am asserting that the length
is 0 to catch these mistakes and not let execution information be
lost.
So before this code:
+ addr = other.addr;
+ len = other.len;
+ memcpy (u.buf, other.u.buf, sizeof (u.buf));
Christina
Intel Deutschland GmbH
Registered Address: Dornacher Strasse 1, 85622 Feldkirchen, Germany
Tel: +49 89 991 430, www.intel.de
Managing Directors: Harry Demas, Jeffrey Schneiderman, Yin Chong Sorrell
Chairperson of the Supervisory Board: Nicole Lau
Registered Seat: Munich
Commercial Register: Amtsgericht Muenchen HRB 186928