From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 17177 invoked by alias); 17 Nov 2005 14:04:57 -0000 Received: (qmail 16828 invoked by uid 22791); 17 Nov 2005 14:04:53 -0000 Received: from nevyn.them.org (HELO nevyn.them.org) (66.93.172.17) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.30-dev) with ESMTP; Thu, 17 Nov 2005 14:04:53 +0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 4.54) id 1EckNg-00030g-2M; Thu, 17 Nov 2005 09:04:52 -0500 Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2005 14:04:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Mark Kettenis Cc: gdb@sourceware.org Subject: Re: C++ related core dump Message-ID: <20051117140452.GB11432@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Mark Kettenis , gdb@sourceware.org References: <200511151015.jAFAFKXw032226@jop31.nfra.nl> <20051117041056.GC3513@nevyn.them.org> <200511170945.jAH9jBle024772@elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200511170945.jAH9jBle024772@elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.8i Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2005-11/txt/msg00345.txt.bz2 On Thu, Nov 17, 2005 at 10:45:11AM +0100, Mark Kettenis wrote: > No, no, you misread that bit above. antennac is an instance of class > ROScalarColumn. So antennac(0) *is* an invocation of operator(). Oh. Then what type IS the fsym? > > GDB does _not_ support calling constructors, though. This is a bit > > tricky. > > > > > Regardless of properly invoking operator(), we should do something > > > about this crash. Can we do something better than the attached patch? > > > > > - func_name = cp_func_name (qualified_name); > > > + if (qualified_name) > > > + func_name = cp_func_name (qualified_name); > > > > Return earlier if fsym is not a function? Or this seems reasonable, to > > avoid the crash. > > Hmm the comment just below mentions C-style functions. Doesn't > SYMBOL_CPLUS_DEMANGLED_NAME (fsym) return NULL for C-style functions > too? In that case I think my patch is indeed the right approach. Probably so, but let's work out what's going on first. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery, LLC