From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 21826 invoked by alias); 7 Dec 2004 16:31:56 -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 21716 invoked from network); 7 Dec 2004 16:31:48 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO takamaka.act-europe.fr) (212.157.227.139) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 7 Dec 2004 16:31:48 -0000 Received: by takamaka.act-europe.fr (Postfix, from userid 507) id B8C2347DAB; Tue, 7 Dec 2004 17:31:47 +0100 (CET) Date: Tue, 07 Dec 2004 16:37:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Randolph Chung Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [RFC] Infinite backtraces... Message-ID: <20041207163147.GQ2524@adacore.com> References: <20041202231255.GM994@adacore.com> <20041203024314.GR6359@tausq.org> <20041203025737.GT994@adacore.com> <20041203045252.GU6359@tausq.org> <20041203165430.GC16491@adacore.com> <20041203180324.GE6359@tausq.org> <20041203182049.GF16491@adacore.com> <20041206071739.GI6359@tausq.org> <20041207094028.GA2524@adacore.com> <20041207155603.GX6359@tausq.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20041207155603.GX6359@tausq.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i X-SW-Source: 2004-12/txt/msg00201.txt.bz2 > i haven't seen it hit that case; i think since this_id is null_frame_id > in this case it will not query the frame for registers. should i fill > in dummy values just in case? I had the same analysis that it should never happen. If Andrew agrees, I would recommend simply putting an assertion instead. Putting a dummy value is not that satisfactory, as you don't know what this is going to be used for. > > One thing that I'm thinking is that this will no longer stop the > > backtrace once your change to hide the stubs goes in (except in > > the very unlikely case when we're inside the initial stub). Is it > > still worth including this patch under these conditions? > > why is that? even with my export stub change this is still applicable to > your threading case.... I don't see how the stub unwinder code is going to be used if you are going to be skipping them. The only case when it is going to be used is when uwinding a program that was stopped just inside one. No? -- Joel