This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: rawhide's gdb segfaults, w/patch
- From: Jim Meyering <jim at meyering dot net>
- To: Jan Kratochvil <jan dot kratochvil at redhat dot com>
- Cc: gdb-patches at sourceware dot org, Corinna Vinschen <vinschen at redhat dot com>
- Date: Sun, 18 Jan 2009 20:04:44 +0100
- Subject: Re: rawhide's gdb segfaults, w/patch
- References: <87abag9pi1.fsf@rho.meyering.net> <20090109214512.GA5851@host0.dyn.jankratochvil.net>
Jan Kratochvil <jan.kratochvil@redhat.com> wrote:
> thanks but your patch needed a second part. It is a regression from:
> http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-cvs/2008-04/msg00136.html
>
> On Sun, 28 Dec 2008 18:30:14 +0100, Jim Meyering wrote:
>> Here's an untested and quite possibly-wrong patch.
>> I.e., if the warning should be given even when "thisfun" is NULL,
>> it would have to be different.
>
> I find it right as gdbarch_return_value_ftype even has a comment:
> FUNCTYPE may be NULL in which case the return convention is computed based
> only on VALTYPE.
>
> This new argument and functype|func_type is only used in sh-tdep.c
> http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2008-04/msg00277.html
> and even there it can be safely NULL.
>
> This new argument and functype|func_type was added by
> http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2008-04/msg00276.html
>
>
> I find just questionable whether the new testcase should be in
> gdb.base/nodebug.exp or gdb.base/return*.exp but may be any way is OK.
Thanks again.
This bug still affects rawhide's gdb-6.8.50.20081214-1.fc11.x86_64.
Is there anything I can do to help get the patch in?