From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 5111 invoked by alias); 5 Jul 2011 16:57:59 -0000 Received: (qmail 5102 invoked by uid 22791); 5 Jul 2011 16:57:58 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.8 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,SPF_HELO_PASS,TW_LV,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Tue, 05 Jul 2011 16:57:42 +0000 Received: from int-mx12.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx12.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.25]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p65GvYQf015335 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Tue, 5 Jul 2011 12:57:34 -0400 Received: from ns3.rdu.redhat.com (ns3.rdu.redhat.com [10.11.255.199]) by int-mx12.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p65GvXoX007075; Tue, 5 Jul 2011 12:57:33 -0400 Received: from barimba (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.9.1]) by ns3.rdu.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id p65GvVid005140; Tue, 5 Jul 2011 12:57:32 -0400 From: Tom Tromey To: Paul Pluzhnikov Cc: Jan Kratochvil , gdb-patches@sourceware.org, Yuri Subject: Re: [patch,7.3] Fix JIT clang-lli gdb-7.3 regression Re: [gdb-7.3] Error in gdb-llvm integration: Unable to read JIT descriptor from remote memory! References: <4E0FAB8D.2070709@rawbw.com> <20110704214654.GA21844@host1.jankratochvil.net> Date: Tue, 05 Jul 2011 17:08:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: (Paul Pluzhnikov's message of "Mon, 4 Jul 2011 15:20:08 -0700") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.0.50 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain 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: 2011-07/txt/msg00159.txt.bz2 >>>>> "Paul" == Paul Pluzhnikov writes: >> I have mostly reverted that part of the Paul's patch Paul> FWIW, I don't believe reverting the patch is the right fix. Certainly Paul> using a single global to guard against recursive invocation can not Paul> possibly work correctly in multi-inferior GDB. I think it is ok in this particular instance, because the global is used to guard just the call to symbol_file_add_from_bfd. I don't have an opinion about the other parts of the discussion. Tom