From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 540 invoked by alias); 28 Mar 2005 22:59:54 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 530 invoked from network); 28 Mar 2005 22:59:49 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO nevyn.them.org) (66.93.172.17) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 28 Mar 2005 22:59:49 -0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 4.50 #1 (Debian)) id 1DG3E0-0000SY-Be for ; Mon, 28 Mar 2005 18:00:48 -0500 Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2005 22:59:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: GDB Subject: Re: [mi] watchpoint-scope exec async command Message-ID: <20050328230048.GA1697@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: GDB References: <20050325161239.GA12231@white> <01c53207$Blat.v2.4$3def9b00@zahav.net.il> <20050328225619.GB3413@white> <20050328224101.GA629@nevyn.them.org> <20050328235310.GA3699@white> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20050328235310.GA3699@white> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6+20040907i X-SW-Source: 2005-03/txt/msg00265.txt.bz2 On Mon, Mar 28, 2005 at 06:53:10PM -0500, Bob Rossi wrote: > On Mon, Mar 28, 2005 at 05:41:01PM -0500, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > > The related breakpoint is supposed to be the scope breakpoint; I can't > > see how they could become unpaired. You may want to run a debugger on > > GDB, using a watchpoint to see what changes it? > > I've tried this, GDB didn't seem to think anyone access'd > b->related_breakpoint between the time it was set in watch_command_1 to > the time that valgrind gives the error in insert_bp_location. Check manually if the value has changed? Does it look like a real breakpoint? Have its contents been corrupted? Etc. > My hunch is that b->related_breakpoint's memory was free'd and never set > to NULL. Is this possible? I don't think a watchpoint would pick that > up, would it? No, but valgrind would. Anyway, a breakpoint on delete_breakpoint would probably catch this also. I can't imagine how that would happen though. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery, LLC