From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from simark.ca (simark.ca [158.69.221.121]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 058E4385B835 for ; Fri, 10 Apr 2020 14:46:32 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 sourceware.org 058E4385B835 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=simark.ca Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=simark@simark.ca Received: from [10.0.0.11] (unknown [192.222.164.54]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by simark.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 569E41E5F9; Fri, 10 Apr 2020 10:46:31 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] Avoid infinite recursion in get_msymbol_address To: Tom Tromey Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org, Ali Tamur References: <20200403165838.9255-1-tromey@adacore.com> <87r1wvzdg6.fsf@tromey.com> From: Simon Marchi Message-ID: <68c4210a-3aab-ed50-1301-33d4a39ef15b@simark.ca> Date: Fri, 10 Apr 2020 10:46:30 -0400 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <87r1wvzdg6.fsf@tromey.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: fr Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Status: No, score=-11.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, KAM_DMARC_STATUS, SPF_HELO_PASS, SPF_PASS, TXREP autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on server2.sourceware.org X-BeenThere: gdb-patches@sourceware.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Gdb-patches mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 10 Apr 2020 14:46:34 -0000 On 2020-04-10 9:18 a.m., Tom Tromey wrote: >>>>>> "Tom" == Tom Tromey writes: > > Tom> Here's a couple of patches to fix up get_msymbol_address, including > Tom> fixing the infinite recursion bug. > > I'm checking this in now. > > Tom A bit late, but let me ask Ali, does this patch fix the problem you were trying to fix with this patch that you sent earlier? https://sourceware.org/legacy-ml/gdb-patches/2019-11/msg00199.html Simon