This is the mail archive of the gdb-patches@sourceware.org mailing list for the GDB project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: [RFA] frame.c (find_frame_sal): Check return value of get_frame_function.

From: Pedro Alves <pedro at codesourcery dot com>
To: gdb-patches at sourceware dot org
Cc: Joel Brobecker <brobecker at adacore dot com>, Michael Snyder <msnyder at vmware dot com>
Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2011 17:44:20 +0000
Subject: Re: [RFA] frame.c (find_frame_sal): Check return value of get_frame_function.
References: <4D719288.6050301@vmware.com> <201103151653.54091.pedro@codesourcery.com> <20110315173805.GN31264@adacore.com>

On Tuesday 15 March 2011 17:38:05, Joel Brobecker wrote:
> > It would normally, but in this case, we've just found that
> > the next frame is an inlined function call.  Then it
> > certainly has debug info?  Otherwise, how would gdb know
> > it's an inlined function call?
> 
> Indeed, I think you're right. inline_skipped_symbol shouldn't
> be returning a NULL symbol, as far as I can tell.  So should
> we just add a gdb_assert with a comment explaining why we
> expect sym to be non-NULL?

I think so.

-- 
Pedro Alves

Follow-Ups:
- Re: [RFA] frame.c (find_frame_sal): Check return value of get_frame_function.
  - From: Michael Snyder

References:
- [RFA] frame.c (find_frame_sal): Check return value of get_frame_function.
  - From: Michael Snyder
- Re: [RFA] frame.c (find_frame_sal): Check return value of get_frame_function.
  - From: Pedro Alves
- Re: [RFA] frame.c (find_frame_sal): Check return value of get_frame_function.
  - From: Joel Brobecker

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]