From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 8860 invoked by alias); 22 Sep 2003 22:28:24 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 8853 invoked from network); 22 Sep 2003 22:28:23 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO zenia.home) (12.223.225.216) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 22 Sep 2003 22:28:23 -0000 Received: by zenia.home (Postfix, from userid 5433) id 380ED20762; Mon, 22 Sep 2003 17:25:09 -0500 (EST) To: Andrew Cagney Cc: David Carlton , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: PATCH: correctly place new inclusions in includer's list References: <3F6F3F33.7060306@redhat.com> From: Jim Blandy Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2003 22:28:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <3F6F3F33.7060306@redhat.com> Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.3 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-SW-Source: 2003-09/txt/msg00487.txt.bz2 Andrew Cagney writes: > > On 22 Sep 2003 12:57:29 -0500, Jim Blandy said: > > > >> I think this would be good to include on the 6.0 branch; would that > >> be okay? > > I've seen macrotab seg faults intermittently over the last few > > months; > > I've been too lazy to track them down (they're hard to reproduce, and > > I didn't know if it was something weird about my branch or a bug in > > mainline), but if this patch might fix them, and if it's as trivial as > > it seems, then putting it in 6.0 makes sense to me. > > Ok. Testcase on mainline? (Are you asking David about tests for his segfaults, or me about tests for the bug my patch fixes? Assuming the latter...) No... let me see if I can whip one up. It would have to be GCC-specific, since we need to use certain GCC-specific flags to produce debug info that used to bring about the internal error.