From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 2799 invoked by alias); 21 Nov 2004 19:40:55 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 2763 invoked from network); 21 Nov 2004 19:40:48 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO legolas.inter.net.il) (192.114.186.24) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 21 Nov 2004 19:40:48 -0000 Received: from zaretski ([80.230.143.196]) by legolas.inter.net.il (MOS 3.5.5-GR) with ESMTP id DDX21330 (AUTH halo1); Sun, 21 Nov 2004 21:40:00 +0200 (IST) Date: Sun, 21 Nov 2004 19:40:00 -0000 From: "Eli Zaretskii" To: David Lecomber Message-ID: <01c4d001$Blat.v2.2.2$ab4fe0a0@zahav.net.il> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 CC: drow@false.org, "gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com" <1101033470.22991.41.camel@cpc2-oxfd5-5-0-cust91.oxfd.cable.ntl.com> (message from David Lecomber on Sun, 21 Nov 2004 10:37:50 +0000) Subject: Re: [PATCH] Seg fault whilst stepping when watch set [ping!] [in breakpoint.c] Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii References: <01c4cef8$Blat.v2.2.2$3fd12960@zahav.net.il> <1100996751.22991.39.camel@cpc2-oxfd5-5-0-cust91.oxfd.cable.ntl.com> <01c4cf89$Blat.v2.2.2$616cb580@zahav.net.il> <20041121064940.GB909@nevyn.them.org> <1101033470.22991.41.camel@cpc2-oxfd5-5-0-cust91.oxfd.cable.ntl.com> X-SW-Source: 2004-11/txt/msg00430.txt.bz2 > From: David Lecomber > Cc: Eli Zaretskii , patches > Date: Sun, 21 Nov 2004 10:37:50 +0000 > > > > > > (gdb) watch i > > > > During symbol reading, incomplete CFI data; unspecified registers (e.g., > > > > eax) at 0x804bc35. > > > > I think this should be fixed in HEAD, as of now; if not, we'll have to > > look at it again. Andrew checked in a patch for this recently. > > Still happens with a fresh CVS from one minute ago.. Btw, I must say that this message is utterly unhelpful to users who, like myself, are not DWARF-2 gurus: it sounds grave and scary, and yet conveys no information whatsoever about user-level implications of the problem, to say nothing about any possible ways to work around it. In other words, this message should be a textbook example of how _not_ to design user interfaces. Can we please replace the message text with something more useful and slightly more self-explanatory?