* varobj bug?
@ 2009-06-07 23:40 Pedro Alves
2009-06-09 21:11 ` Tom Tromey
0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: Pedro Alves @ 2009-06-07 23:40 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gdb-patches
[ Just stumbled on this while reading this code. ]
Isn't the patch below a bug fix? FI possibly points at
the frame returned by:
fi = find_frame_addr_in_frame_chain (frame);
not the originally selected frame.
Maybe this code should be using make_cleanup_restore_current_thread?
--
Pedro Alves
---
gdb/varobj.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
Index: src/gdb/varobj.c
===================================================================
--- src.orig/gdb/varobj.c 2009-06-08 00:37:55.000000000 +0100
+++ src/gdb/varobj.c 2009-06-08 00:38:47.000000000 +0100
@@ -577,7 +577,7 @@ varobj_create (char *objname,
var->root->rootvar = var;
/* Reset the selected frame */
- if (fi != NULL)
+ if (old_fi != NULL)
select_frame (old_fi);
}
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread* Re: varobj bug?
2009-06-07 23:40 varobj bug? Pedro Alves
@ 2009-06-09 21:11 ` Tom Tromey
2009-06-10 23:41 ` Pedro Alves
0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: Tom Tromey @ 2009-06-09 21:11 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Pedro Alves; +Cc: gdb-patches
>>>>> "Pedro" == Pedro Alves <pedro@codesourcery.com> 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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: varobj bug?
2009-06-09 21:11 ` Tom Tromey
@ 2009-06-10 23:41 ` Pedro Alves
0 siblings, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: Pedro Alves @ 2009-06-10 23:41 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: tromey; +Cc: gdb-patches
On Tuesday 09 June 2009 22:09:14, Tom Tromey wrote:
> >>>>> "Pedro" == Pedro Alves <pedro@codesourcery.com> 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.
Thanks. I tested and checked in the fixlet with this
changelog entry:
2009-06-11 Pedro Alves <pedro@codesourcery.com>
* varobj.c (varobj_create): Properly restore the selected frame.
> Pedro> Maybe this code should be using make_cleanup_restore_current_thread?
>
> This also sounds reasonable.
Ok, I'll see about cooking something up.
--
Pedro Alves
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2009-06-10 23:41 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2009-06-07 23:40 varobj bug? Pedro Alves
2009-06-09 21:11 ` Tom Tromey
2009-06-10 23:41 ` Pedro Alves
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox