From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp.polymtl.ca (smtp.polymtl.ca [132.207.4.11]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E972A384F013 for ; Mon, 10 May 2021 17:33:21 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 sourceware.org E972A384F013 Received: from simark.ca (simark.ca [158.69.221.121]) (authenticated bits=0) by smtp.polymtl.ca (8.14.7/8.14.7) with ESMTP id 14AHXGws031475 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Mon, 10 May 2021 13:33:21 -0400 DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp.polymtl.ca 14AHXGws031475 Received: from [10.0.0.11] (192-222-157-6.qc.cable.ebox.net [192.222.157.6]) (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 DFF6A1E813; Mon, 10 May 2021 13:33:15 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] gdb: fix eval.c assert during inferior exit event To: Magne Hov , gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <20210505155627.3850386-1-mhov@undo.io> <2dcd95bb-4262-4a4a-e851-472f977f15c9@polymtl.ca> <5swns6le6u.fsf@undo.io> From: Simon Marchi Message-ID: <82a7ee2a-439b-85ce-2b18-766e0f4f46e3@polymtl.ca> Date: Mon, 10 May 2021 13:33:15 -0400 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.7.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <5swns6le6u.fsf@undo.io> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Poly-FromMTA: (simark.ca [158.69.221.121]) at Mon, 10 May 2021 17:33:16 +0000 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, DKIM_VALID_EF, NICE_REPLY_A, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL, 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: Mon, 10 May 2021 17:33:23 -0000 >>> +standard_testfile .cc >> >> Is C++ really required? I was able to reproduce the bug with your >> reproducer, but compiled as C. If we can re-use the existing test >> program for this test (just let it run to completion), it would be >> simpler and preferable. >> > > I agree that it would be nice to reuse the existing test program. The only > requirement is that `language_defn->la_language == language_cplus` evaluates to > true in order to prevent the asserting condition in `eval.c` from being > short-circuited. We can force this by executing `set language c++`. In my > revised patch I do this and I have removed the unnecessary program. Sorry, I thought I tried with the source file as C and saw the bug, but I no longer see it. I probably tested with the wrong file or something. Using "set language c++" sounds good. Simon