From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 30737 invoked by alias); 20 Apr 2009 17:19:53 -0000 Received: (qmail 30729 invoked by uid 22791); 20 Apr 2009 17:19:52 -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; Mon, 20 Apr 2009 17:19:43 +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 n3KHJYfI004899; Mon, 20 Apr 2009 13:19:35 -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 n3KHJXOb002811; Mon, 20 Apr 2009 13:19:34 -0400 Received: from opsy.redhat.com (vpn-12-214.rdu.redhat.com [10.11.12.214]) by ns3.rdu.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n3KHJWLL023360; Mon, 20 Apr 2009 13:19:32 -0400 Received: by opsy.redhat.com (Postfix, from userid 500) id ABAB137829A; Mon, 20 Apr 2009 11:19:31 -0600 (MDT) To: nickrob@snap.net.nz (Nick Roberts) Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] PR backtrace/9786 References: <18849.13514.379735.375860@kahikatea.snap.net.nz> <18921.8753.647539.260364@totara.tehura.co.nz> From: Tom Tromey Reply-To: tromey@redhat.com Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2009 17:19:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <18921.8753.647539.260364@totara.tehura.co.nz> (Nick Roberts's message of "Sat\, 18 Apr 2009 12\:43\:29 +1200") 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: 2009-04/txt/msg00519.txt.bz2 >>>>> "Nick" == Nick Roberts writes: Nick> Current behaviour breaks remote debugging when using GDB in Emacs as it Nick> currently uses "info frame". If this behaviour can't be fully resolved Nick> before the release could a less than perfect patch be applied to prevent Nick> the assertion error? I don't know anything about this patch, so I can't really answer that... but could you add this to the wiki as a release blocker? I think that's the best way to ensure that some decision is made before 7.0. Tom