From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 19974 invoked by alias); 22 Sep 2003 19:42:25 -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 19959 invoked from network); 22 Sep 2003 19:42:23 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO zenia.home) (12.223.225.216) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 22 Sep 2003 19:42:23 -0000 Received: by zenia.home (Postfix, from userid 5433) id C06872075E; Mon, 22 Sep 2003 14:39:08 -0500 (EST) To: David Carlton Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: PATCH: correctly place new inclusions in includer's list References: From: Jim Blandy Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2003 19:42:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: 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/msg00479.txt.bz2 David Carlton 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. It's hard to see how this would fix any seg faults. It just fixes where in the list the traversal stops; but no matter where it stops, the other loop conditions ensure that it stops in a structurally valid state. So I'd say the segfaults you've seen don't weigh for or against.