From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 29555 invoked by alias); 7 Aug 2007 12:13:28 -0000 Received: (qmail 29501 invoked by uid 22791); 7 Aug 2007 12:13:26 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from viper.snap.net.nz (HELO viper.snap.net.nz) (202.37.101.8) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Tue, 07 Aug 2007 12:13:23 +0000 Received: from kahikatea.snap.net.nz (99.60.255.123.dynamic.snap.net.nz [123.255.60.99]) by viper.snap.net.nz (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3D1303D9139; Wed, 8 Aug 2007 00:13:20 +1200 (NZST) Received: by kahikatea.snap.net.nz (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 092228FC6D; Wed, 8 Aug 2007 00:13:08 +1200 (NZST) From: Nick Roberts MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <18104.25042.969785.701585@kahikatea.snap.net.nz> Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2007 12:13:00 -0000 To: "Robert Norton" Cc: gdb@sourceware.org Subject: Re: (Another) Segfault in varobj.c In-Reply-To: References: X-Mailer: VM 7.19 under Emacs 22.1.50.7 X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2007-08/txt/msg00072.txt.bz2 > I have encountered another crash seemingly originating in varobj.c. > Whilst I've been able to work around the segfault I think there are some > deeper rooted problems and I remembered from our previous conversation > that the whole of this has been rewritten for 6.7. How self contained > were these changes, i.e. would it be hard to back port them for our 6.6 > based release? How risky would this be? I can't say how risky it would be, I don't even understand why you would rather backport to 6.6 than update to 6.7. If you do need to be selective about the changes, I would just suggest including those from mi-cmd-var.c/h too. -- Nick http://www.inet.net.nz/~nickrob