From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 14323 invoked by alias); 9 Jun 2009 21:11:38 -0000 Received: (qmail 14315 invoked by uid 22791); 9 Jun 2009 21:11:38 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx2.redhat.com (HELO mx2.redhat.com) (66.187.237.31) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Tue, 09 Jun 2009 21:11:22 +0000 Received: from int-mx2.corp.redhat.com (int-mx2.corp.redhat.com [172.16.27.26]) by mx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n59L9H7m008685; Tue, 9 Jun 2009 17:09:17 -0400 Received: from ns3.rdu.redhat.com (ns3.rdu.redhat.com [10.11.255.199]) by int-mx2.corp.redhat.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id n59L9GNb024810; Tue, 9 Jun 2009 17:09:17 -0400 Received: from opsy.redhat.com (vpn-12-99.rdu.redhat.com [10.11.12.99]) by ns3.rdu.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n59L9Fbc016349; Tue, 9 Jun 2009 17:09:16 -0400 Received: by opsy.redhat.com (Postfix, from userid 500) id B1B74486A3; Tue, 9 Jun 2009 15:09:14 -0600 (MDT) To: Pedro Alves Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: varobj bug? References: <200906080041.07004.pedro@codesourcery.com> From: Tom Tromey Reply-To: tromey@redhat.com Date: Tue, 09 Jun 2009 21:11:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <200906080041.07004.pedro@codesourcery.com> (Pedro Alves's message of "Mon\, 8 Jun 2009 00\:41\:06 +0100") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.2 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii 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 X-SW-Source: 2009-06/txt/msg00245.txt.bz2 >>>>> "Pedro" == Pedro Alves writes: Pedro> [ Just stumbled on this while reading this code. ] Pedro> Isn't the patch below a bug fix? FI possibly points at Pedro> the frame returned by: Pedro> fi = find_frame_addr_in_frame_chain (frame); Pedro> not the originally selected frame. I agree with your analysis. Pedro> Maybe this code should be using make_cleanup_restore_current_thread? This also sounds reasonable. Tom