From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 32431 invoked by alias); 18 Mar 2004 16:36:58 -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 32379 invoked from network); 18 Mar 2004 16:36:56 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO nevyn.them.org) (66.93.172.17) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 18 Mar 2004 16:36:56 -0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 4.30 #1 (Debian)) id 1B40Vs-0001d3-0Q for ; Thu, 18 Mar 2004 11:36:56 -0500 Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2004 00:09:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [rfa/doco] PROBLEMS: add regressions since gdb 6.0 Message-ID: <20040318163655.GA6165@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com References: <20040317015343.3DA244B104@berman.michael-chastain.com> <8296-Wed17Mar2004210500+0200-eliz@elta.co.il> <4058B42C.8010007@gnu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.1i X-SW-Source: 2004-03/txt/msg00427.txt.bz2 Message-ID: <20040319000900.lyWIQIZ310OO9P_SH7IoJqDNlAOi35aSty0Rms6Jpws@z> On Thu, Mar 18, 2004 at 08:10:53AM +0200, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > This is IMHO better than just ``in worse shape'', but it's still not > detailed enough. I, for one, don't understand the real meaning of > ``decent backtraces''. What does it mean? do I get garbage in some or > all frames? does the backtrace stop short of showing be the whole > picture? which frames are susceptible and what can I do to alleviate > that (compilation options, perhaps)? Etc., etc. All of the above problems are likely. Relevant compiler options tend to vary by architecture. > Also, are there actually targets that use the old frame stuff _and_ > use glibc? (It strikes me that the crazy techniques used by glibc are > as guilty for breaking GDB as the oldish targets.) It actually has more to do with GCC than glibc, except for the recurring problems with syscall unwinders - generic hunks of assembly code that, in the new model, we can annotate with unwind information. Yes, several glibc targets still use the old code, but the number's shrunk drastically since 6.1. IIRC the PPC target has been converted in HEAD but not 6.1. I think there's at least one more. -- Daniel Jacobowitz MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer