Re: -data-disassemble segmetation fault

[Andrew Cagney <ac131313@redhat.com>]

> Hi,
> 
> I haven't added the PR yet because I plan on trying to fix the bug when
> I get some time.
> 
> Should I add the PR first, and then fix the bug if I get time?

If you intend posting a patch (with addition to the existing disasm 
tests), no skip all that.

Andrew


> Also, I didn't know if you realized that the file I sent in 
> called 'basics.c' is not the same file as the one in the gdb
> testsuite directory. This is probably why I found the crash, it does
> look as if basics.c in the testsuite is tested well.
> 
> Thanks,
> Bob Rossi
> 
> On Wed, Jul 30, 2003 at 10:45:33AM -0400, Andrew Cagney wrote:
> 
>> >Hi,
>> >
>> >I tried using the -data-disassemble command on the attached file.
>> >I ran this command,
>> >-data-disassemble -f basic.c -l 25 -n -1 -- 1
>> >and gdb segfaulted.
>> >
>> >I am concerned that the MI code is being presented as an alternative 
>> >interface to GDB, but it is mainly untested when it comes to building 
>> >a practical application on top of it.   Either that, or I just found the
>> >needle in the haystack crash, since it was the first or second command I
>> >ran.
> 
>> 
>> Given that a quick glance at GDBs testsuite reveals that it is trying 
>> all the following combinations:
>> 
>> 111-data-disassemble -s $pc -e "$pc + 12" -- 0
>> 222-data-disassemble  -f basics.c -l 32 -- 0
>> 002-data-disassemble -f basics.c -l 21 -- 1
>> 003-data-disassemble -s $pc -e "$pc+4" -- 1
>> 123-data-disassemble -f foo -l abc -n 0 -- 0
>> 321-data-disassemble -s foo -e bar -- 0
>> 456-data-disassemble -s $pc -f basics.c -- 0
>> 789-data-disassemble -f basics.c -l 32 -- 9
>> 222-data-disassemble  -f basics.c -l 32 -n 20 -- 0
>> 222-data-disassemble  -f basics.c -l 32 -n 0 -- 0
>> 222-data-disassemble  -f basics.c -l 32 -n 50 -- 0
>> 222-data-disassemble  -f basics.c -l 32 -n 20 -- 1
>> 222-data-disassemble  -f basics.c -l 32 -n 0 -- 1
>> 222-data-disassemble  -f basics.c -l 32 -n 50 -- 1
>> 111-data-disassemble -s $pc -e "$pc + 12" -- 0
>> 222-data-disassemble  -f basics.c -l 32 -- 0
>> 002-data-disassemble -f basics.c -l 21 -- 1
>> 003-data-disassemble -s $pc -e "$pc+4" -- 1
>> 123-data-disassemble -f foo -l abc -n 0 -- 0
>> 321-data-disassemble -s foo -e bar -- 0
>> 456-data-disassemble -s $pc -f basics.c -- 0
>> 789-data-disassemble -f basics.c -l 32 -- 9
>> 222-data-disassemble  -f basics.c -l 32 -n 20 -- 0
>> 222-data-disassemble  -f basics.c -l 32 -n 0 -- 0
>> 222-data-disassemble  -f basics.c -l 32 -n 50 -- 0
>> 222-data-disassemble  -f basics.c -l 32 -n 20 -- 1
>> 222-data-disassemble  -f basics.c -l 32 -n 0 -- 1
>> 222-data-disassemble  -f basics.c -l 32 -n 50 -- 1
>> 
>> I'd assume that you've tickled an edge case.
>> 
> 
>> >Please let me know if I am doing anything wrong.
>> >
>> >I have attached the file that reproduced the crash ( basic.c ), and I also
>> >attached a backtrace. I was running a gdb out of cvs, freshly updated
>> >tonight ( 07/29/2003 ).
> 
>> 
>> Can you turn this into a bug report (transcript of what lead to the 
>> sigseg) and an addition gdb<PRNUM> to the testsuite.  That way it can be 
>> added to the repository.  Of course, if you've also got a patch.
>> 
>> Andrew
>> 
> 
>