Re: [DynInst_API:] commit: further 9.1 fixes

On 12/09/2015 08:58 PM, Josh Stone wrote: On 12/08/2015 09:14 AM, Bill Williams wrote: in the absence of any further showstoppers, this will become 9.1.0. I'm still hoping dynamic library callbacks will change from modules to objects, now that there can be many modules per dynamic library. I

Re: [DynInst_API:] commit: further 9.1 fixes

On 12/08/2015 09:14 AM, Bill Williams wrote: > in the absence of any further showstoppers, this will become 9.1.0. I'm still hoping dynamic library callbacks will change from modules to objects, now that there can be many modules per dynamic library. I mentioned this again when the change

[DynInst_API:] commit: further 9.1 fixes

Fixes for the following: * Instruction decoding bugs revealed by the test suite * dwarf_attr memory leak * improper handling of malformed DWARF: high_pc can return an error even when it's supposedly present, and the associated Dwarf_Error needs to be freed * Windows-specific misuse of

Re: [DynInst_API:] commit: further 9.1 fixes

How often are these indirect vs. direct? Does it ever happen that the indirect points to static tables of addresses, so is statically resolvable? --bart On 12/8/2015 11:14 AM, Bill Williams wrote: * Exception block parsing now ignores indirect catch blocks; these contain pointers to catch

Re: [DynInst_API:] commit: further 9.1 fixes

On 12/08/2015 02:16 PM, Xiaozhu Meng wrote: On Tue, Dec 8, 2015 at 1:26 PM, Bill Williams > wrote: On 12/08/2015 12:47 PM, Barton Miller wrote: How often are these indirect vs. direct? Does it ever happen that the indirect points

Re: [DynInst_API:] commit: further 9.1 fixes

On Tue, Dec 8, 2015 at 1:26 PM, Bill Williams wrote: > On 12/08/2015 12:47 PM, Barton Miller wrote: > >> How often are these indirect vs. direct? Does it ever happen that the >> indirect points to static tables of addresses, so is statically resolvable? >> >> Mostly they're