From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <sourceware-bugzilla@sourceware.org>
Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48)
 id BEE6E383E6B8; Fri, 24 Jun 2022 16:16:20 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org BEE6E383E6B8
From: "mhov at undo dot io" <sourceware-bugzilla@sourceware.org>
To: gdb-prs@sourceware.org
Subject: [Bug gdb/29257] Double free of demangled symbol name
Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2022 16:16:20 +0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gdb
X-Bugzilla-Component: gdb
X-Bugzilla-Version: 10.1
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: 
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: mhov at undo dot io
X-Bugzilla-Status: UNCONFIRMED
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P2
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at sourceware dot org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-29257-4717-DHqzmPjMXb@http.sourceware.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-29257-4717@http.sourceware.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-29257-4717@http.sourceware.org/bugzilla/>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-BeenThere: gdb-prs@sourceware.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Gdb-prs mailing list <gdb-prs.sourceware.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://sourceware.org/mailman/options/gdb-prs>,
 <mailto:gdb-prs-request@sourceware.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://sourceware.org/pipermail/gdb-prs/>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-prs-request@sourceware.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://sourceware.org/mailman/listinfo/gdb-prs>,
 <mailto:gdb-prs-request@sourceware.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2022 16:16:20 -0000

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D29257

--- Comment #6 from Magne Hov <mhov at undo dot io> ---
Hi Aaron,=20

Thanks for your reply. We're using elfutils-0.186 and it sounds like
debuginfodclient switching over to using empty files as miss markers would
explain why we see this issue. If mixing use of GDB built with 0.186 and 0.=
187
then the former will interpret the cache misses from the latter as valid
entries.

Sticking to only using one version of debuginfodclient would solve this, bu=
t I
think there might still be an argument for patching GDB to deal better with
being given an empty debug info file.

For our use case we might want to ensure that we're using a custom
DEBUGINFOD_CACHE_PATH as we often run on machines alongside other builds of
GDB.

--=20
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.=