From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 20260 invoked by alias); 27 Apr 2006 20:56:35 -0000 Received: (qmail 20247 invoked by uid 22791); 27 Apr 2006 20:56:33 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from nile.gnat.com (HELO nile.gnat.com) (205.232.38.5) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Thu, 27 Apr 2006 20:56:29 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-nile.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7A60448CEF5; Thu, 27 Apr 2006 16:56:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: from nile.gnat.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (nile.gnat.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 03882-01-5; Thu, 27 Apr 2006 16:56:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: from takamaka.act-europe.fr (s142-179-108-108.bc.hsia.telus.net [142.179.108.108]) by nile.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2ABD048CDD2; Thu, 27 Apr 2006 16:56:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: by takamaka.act-europe.fr (Postfix, from userid 507) id 4D3A447E7F; Thu, 27 Apr 2006 13:56:21 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2006 20:56:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Eli Zaretskii Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [RFC] problem fetching inferior memory due to breakpoint Message-ID: <20060427205621.GD930@adacore.com> References: <20060426190517.GA930@adacore.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2006-04/txt/msg00361.txt.bz2 > > (gdb) bt > > #0 0x00401053 in hello () at foo.c:5 > > #1 0x0022ee88 in ?? () > > #2 0x00401093 in main () at foo.c:12 > > > > We get an extra frame between hello() and main(). > > I cannot reproduce this with a MinGW-compiled program, using GDB 6.3 > and 6.3.50.20051116-cvs. What version of GDB are you using? Is this > problem visible only in a recent codebase? Right now, I'm working on 6.4.50.20060426-cvs. I would pretty surprised if 6.3 didn't have the problem, I remember giving it a try too. -- Joel