From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 17853 invoked by alias); 7 Aug 2007 15:08:56 -0000 Received: (qmail 17729 invoked by uid 22791); 7 Aug 2007 15:08:55 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from main.gmane.org (HELO ciao.gmane.org) (80.91.229.2) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Tue, 07 Aug 2007 15:08:47 +0000 Received: from list by ciao.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1IIQfp-0007aw-Mb for gdb@sources.redhat.com; Tue, 07 Aug 2007 17:08:41 +0200 Received: from 241-246.umostel.ru ([77.246.241.246]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Tue, 07 Aug 2007 17:08:41 +0200 Received: from ghost by 241-246.umostel.ru with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Tue, 07 Aug 2007 17:08:41 +0200 To: gdb@sources.redhat.com From: Vladimir Prus Subject: Re: (Another) Segfault in varobj.c Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2007 15:08:00 -0000 Message-ID: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit User-Agent: KNode/0.10.4 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/msg00074.txt.bz2 Robert Norton wrote: > Hi, > > 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? It's hard to say without knowing if you have any local changes in varobj.c If not, then just grabbing varobj.c and maybe mi/* should be safe -- at least as far as my patches are concerned, they are local to varobj.c. - Volodya