This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: "no longer active" registers
- From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow at false dot org>
- To: Jan Kratochvil <jan dot kratochvil at redhat dot com>
- Cc: Jeremy Bennett <jeremy dot bennett at embecosm dot com>, gdb-patches at sourceware dot org, Denys Vlasenko <dvlasenk at redhat dot com>
- Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2009 08:56:43 -0400
- Subject: Re: "no longer active" registers
- References: <1239610666.13312.97.camel@thomas> <20090413124021.GA7419@host0.dyn.jankratochvil.net>
On Mon, Apr 13, 2009 at 02:40:21PM +0200, Jan Kratochvil wrote:
> > I notice that this patch is not part of the main GDB CVS tree. Are there
> > plans to incorporate this patch into the main CVS tree, or are there
> > side-effects that mean it is not generally applicable?
>
> While I could not find a regression by this patch it is just a fixup of one of
> the many places affected by the ambiguous meaning of a NULL frame.
I think it's the opposite workaround that should be used. The NULL ID
is usually the outermost frame, not the innermost. I don't have a
link handy but I've posted another workaround for this to the list in
the past.
> Probably the right fix is to have non-NULL frame value for the unbacktraceable
> frame.
Yes, I agree.
--
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery