From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 9545 invoked by alias); 4 Sep 2009 22:28:09 -0000 Received: (qmail 9536 invoked by uid 22791); 4 Sep 2009 22:28:08 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,J_CHICKENPOX_53,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Fri, 04 Sep 2009 22:28:04 +0000 Received: from int-mx04.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx04.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.17]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n84MRqat032544; Fri, 4 Sep 2009 18:27:53 -0400 Received: from ns3.rdu.redhat.com (ns3.rdu.redhat.com [10.11.255.199]) by int-mx04.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n84MRqml006194; Fri, 4 Sep 2009 18:27:52 -0400 Received: from opsy.redhat.com (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.9.1]) by ns3.rdu.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n84MRp1v024356; Fri, 4 Sep 2009 18:27:51 -0400 Received: by opsy.redhat.com (Postfix, from userid 500) id 9AD30378242; Fri, 4 Sep 2009 16:27:50 -0600 (MDT) From: Tom Tromey To: Nathan Froyd Cc: Doug Evans , Pedro Alves , gdb@sourceware.org Subject: Re: store.exp failure on i686-linux with newer gcc's References: <200909032303.56901.pedro@codesourcery.com> <20090903234357.GR29075@codesourcery.com> <20090904212804.GA28036@caradoc.them.org> Reply-To: Tom Tromey Date: Fri, 04 Sep 2009 22:28:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <20090904212804.GA28036@caradoc.them.org> (Daniel Jacobowitz's message of "Fri, 4 Sep 2009 17:28:04 -0400") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.1 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii 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: 2009-09/txt/msg00093.txt.bz2 >>>>> "Daniel" == Daniel Jacobowitz writes: Daniel> I *think* so - the frame ID would only be consulted if there were Daniel> registers. I assume we can't get here when the inferior is not Daniel> running, since we're passed a frame. Or is that overly optimistic? No, I think you are correct. Thanks for the reassurance. Tom