From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 62101 invoked by alias); 19 Oct 2016 16:14:54 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org Received: (qmail 62080 invoked by uid 89); 19 Oct 2016 16:14:53 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy=craft X-HELO: relay1.mentorg.com Received: from relay1.mentorg.com (HELO relay1.mentorg.com) (192.94.38.131) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Wed, 19 Oct 2016 16:14:51 +0000 Received: from svr-orw-mbx-03.mgc.mentorg.com ([147.34.90.203]) by relay1.mentorg.com with esmtp id 1bwtVx-0001jQ-Mf from Luis_Gustavo@mentor.com ; Wed, 19 Oct 2016 09:14:49 -0700 Received: from [134.86.105.168] (147.34.91.1) by svr-orw-mbx-03.mgc.mentorg.com (147.34.90.203) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1210.3; Wed, 19 Oct 2016 09:14:47 -0700 Reply-To: Luis Machado Subject: Re: [rfc] PR 20569, segv in follow_exec References: <57F6D57D.8070603@codesourcery.com> <50f4c7d8-44e3-4351-0b54-9cbaef64717a@codesourcery.com> <14a10c11-cda1-945c-560a-ee619fe59101@redhat.com> To: Pedro Alves , Sandra Loosemore , From: Luis Machado Message-ID: <91ae2166-15c4-d356-5b50-ecdd3402740d@codesourcery.com> Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2016 16:14:00 -0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.3.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <14a10c11-cda1-945c-560a-ee619fe59101@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-ClientProxiedBy: svr-orw-mbx-01.mgc.mentorg.com (147.34.90.201) To svr-orw-mbx-03.mgc.mentorg.com (147.34.90.203) X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2016-10/txt/msg00571.txt.bz2 On 10/19/2016 08:37 AM, Pedro Alves wrote: > On 10/18/2016 07:11 PM, Luis Machado wrote: > >> I went through the patch and, although this code as a whole is a bit on >> the convoluted side, it looks reasonable to me. >> >> Segfaults are not supposed to happen, so allowing the session to >> continue is a good thing IMO. >> >> Sounds like a good candidate for master and even stable branches. > > I didn't look at the patch in detail yet, but I think it'd be > very good to have tests? > > Thanks, > Pedro Alves > I fixed a gotcha with the patch and i have a reproducer that makes GDB crash on x86-64. I'll craft a test.