From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from sa-prd-fep-045.btinternet.com (mailomta21-sa.btinternet.com [213.120.69.27]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 518B53858D28 for ; Thu, 30 Dec 2021 15:44:06 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org 518B53858D28 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=dronecode.org.uk Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=dronecode.org.uk Received: from sa-prd-rgout-004.btmx-prd.synchronoss.net ([10.2.38.7]) by sa-prd-fep-045.btinternet.com with ESMTP id <20211230154405.XJYI20692.sa-prd-fep-045.btinternet.com@sa-prd-rgout-004.btmx-prd.synchronoss.net> for ; Thu, 30 Dec 2021 15:44:05 +0000 Authentication-Results: btinternet.com; auth=pass (PLAIN) smtp.auth=jonturney@btinternet.com; bimi=skipped X-SNCR-Rigid: 613943C60F937027 X-Originating-IP: [81.129.146.209] X-OWM-Source-IP: 81.129.146.209 (GB) X-OWM-Env-Sender: jonturney@btinternet.com X-VadeSecure-score: verdict=clean score=0/300, class=clean X-RazorGate-Vade: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedvuddruddvfedgkedtucetufdoteggodetrfdotffvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuueftkffvkffujffvgffngfevqffopdfqfgfvnecuuegrihhlohhuthemuceftddunecusecvtfgvtghiphhivghnthhsucdlqddutddtmdenucfjughrpefkffggfgfuvfhfhfgjtgfgsehtjeertddtfeejnecuhfhrohhmpeflohhnucfvuhhrnhgvhicuoehjohhnrdhtuhhrnhgvhiesughrohhnvggtohguvgdrohhrghdruhhkqeenucggtffrrghtthgvrhhnpeeihfeghfdviedvjeevkeektdejuddvhedtveetgeevkefgtdeigeejvdeutefhvdenucffohhmrghinhepshhouhhrtggvfigrrhgvrdhorhhgnecukfhppeekuddruddvledrudegiedrvddtleenucevlhhushhtvghrufhiiigvpedtnecurfgrrhgrmhephhgvlhhopegludelvddrudeikedruddruddtfegnpdhinhgvthepkedurdduvdelrddugeeirddvtdelpdhmrghilhhfrhhomhepjhhonhdrthhurhhnvgihsegurhhonhgvtghouggvrdhorhhgrdhukhdprhgtphhtthhopegthihgfihinhdqphgrthgthhgvshestgihghifihhnrdgtohhm X-RazorGate-Vade-Verdict: clean 0 X-RazorGate-Vade-Classification: clean Received: from [192.168.1.103] (81.129.146.209) by sa-prd-rgout-004.btmx-prd.synchronoss.net (5.8.716.04) (authenticated as jonturney@btinternet.com) id 613943C60F937027 for cygwin-patches@cygwin.com; Thu, 30 Dec 2021 15:44:05 +0000 Message-ID: <9796eaa8-07f1-0f14-3105-9ce482005b17@dronecode.org.uk> Date: Thu, 30 Dec 2021 15:44:00 +0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.4.1 Subject: Re: [PATCH] fhandler_pipe: add sanity limit to handle loops Content-Language: en-GB To: Cygwin Patches References: <90dd8b13-8e7f-97b8-b480-299a9d64836e@dronecode.org.uk> From: Jon Turney In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1193.5 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, FORGED_SPF_HELO, KAM_DMARC_STATUS, KAM_LAZY_DOMAIN_SECURITY, NICE_REPLY_A, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL, SPF_HELO_PASS, SPF_NONE, TXREP autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on server2.sourceware.org X-BeenThere: cygwin-patches@cygwin.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Cygwin core component patch submission and discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 30 Dec 2021 15:44:07 -0000 On 29/12/2021 05:45, Jeremy Drake wrote: > On Mon, 27 Dec 2021, Jon Turney wrote: > >> On 24/12/2021 00:29, Jeremy Drake via Cygwin-patches wrote: >>> again, so I can't confirm this. I took a core with 'dumper' but gdb >>> doesn't want to load it (it says Core file format not supported, maybe >>> something with msys2's gdb?). >> >> I think you need gdb 11 (for this patch set [1], which is also in cygwin's >> gdb 10 package) to read x86_64 cygwin core dumps. >> >> [1] https://sourceware.org/pipermail/gdb-patches/2020-August/171232.html > > Thanks, this was the problem. But the core dump wasn't much help anyway, > the stuff I was interested in was pre-exception, and the backtrace > seemed to stop at the exception handling (unlike when 'live' debugging > when the stack trace continued). Hmm.. That's probably a bug of some sort, since I think the two methods should produce the same results...