Re: -data-disassemble segmetation fault

[Bob Rossi <bob at brasko dot net>]

Hi,

I haven't added the PR yet because I plan on trying to fix the bug when
I get some time.

Should I add the PR first, and then fix the bug if I get time?

Also, I didn't know if you realized that the file I sent in 
called 'basics.c' is not the same file as the one in the gdb
testsuite directory. This is probably why I found the crash, it does
look as if basics.c in the testsuite is tested well.

Thanks,
Bob Rossi

On Wed, Jul 30, 2003 at 10:45:33AM -0400, Andrew Cagney wrote:
> >Hi,
> >
> >I tried using the -data-disassemble command on the attached file.
> >I ran this command,
> >-data-disassemble -f basic.c -l 25 -n -1 -- 1
> >and gdb segfaulted.
> >
> >I am concerned that the MI code is being presented as an alternative 
> >interface to GDB, but it is mainly untested when it comes to building 
> >a practical application on top of it.   Either that, or I just found the
> >needle in the haystack crash, since it was the first or second command I
> >ran.
> 
> Given that a quick glance at GDBs testsuite reveals that it is trying 
> all the following combinations:
> 
> 111-data-disassemble -s $pc -e "$pc + 12" -- 0
> 222-data-disassemble  -f basics.c -l 32 -- 0
> 002-data-disassemble -f basics.c -l 21 -- 1
> 003-data-disassemble -s $pc -e "$pc+4" -- 1
> 123-data-disassemble -f foo -l abc -n 0 -- 0
> 321-data-disassemble -s foo -e bar -- 0
> 456-data-disassemble -s $pc -f basics.c -- 0
> 789-data-disassemble -f basics.c -l 32 -- 9
> 222-data-disassemble  -f basics.c -l 32 -n 20 -- 0
> 222-data-disassemble  -f basics.c -l 32 -n 0 -- 0
> 222-data-disassemble  -f basics.c -l 32 -n 50 -- 0
> 222-data-disassemble  -f basics.c -l 32 -n 20 -- 1
> 222-data-disassemble  -f basics.c -l 32 -n 0 -- 1
> 222-data-disassemble  -f basics.c -l 32 -n 50 -- 1
> 111-data-disassemble -s $pc -e "$pc + 12" -- 0
> 222-data-disassemble  -f basics.c -l 32 -- 0
> 002-data-disassemble -f basics.c -l 21 -- 1
> 003-data-disassemble -s $pc -e "$pc+4" -- 1
> 123-data-disassemble -f foo -l abc -n 0 -- 0
> 321-data-disassemble -s foo -e bar -- 0
> 456-data-disassemble -s $pc -f basics.c -- 0
> 789-data-disassemble -f basics.c -l 32 -- 9
> 222-data-disassemble  -f basics.c -l 32 -n 20 -- 0
> 222-data-disassemble  -f basics.c -l 32 -n 0 -- 0
> 222-data-disassemble  -f basics.c -l 32 -n 50 -- 0
> 222-data-disassemble  -f basics.c -l 32 -n 20 -- 1
> 222-data-disassemble  -f basics.c -l 32 -n 0 -- 1
> 222-data-disassemble  -f basics.c -l 32 -n 50 -- 1
> 
> I'd assume that you've tickled an edge case.
> 
> >Please let me know if I am doing anything wrong.
> >
> >I have attached the file that reproduced the crash ( basic.c ), and I also
> >attached a backtrace. I was running a gdb out of cvs, freshly updated
> >tonight ( 07/29/2003 ).
> 
> Can you turn this into a bug report (transcript of what lead to the 
> sigseg) and an addition gdb<PRNUM> to the testsuite.  That way it can be 
> added to the repository.  Of course, if you've also got a patch.
> 
> Andrew
>