From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 4104 invoked by alias); 22 May 2008 03:14:36 -0000 Received: (qmail 4095 invoked by uid 22791); 22 May 2008 03:14:35 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from NaN.false.org (HELO nan.false.org) (208.75.86.248) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Thu, 22 May 2008 03:14:01 +0000 Received: from nan.false.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CD6E5983FE; Thu, 22 May 2008 03:13:59 +0000 (GMT) Received: from caradoc.them.org (22.svnf5.xdsl.nauticom.net [209.195.183.55]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B736E98371; Thu, 22 May 2008 03:13:59 +0000 (GMT) Received: from drow by caradoc.them.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Jz1Fe-0007Gs-P7; Wed, 21 May 2008 23:13:58 -0400 Date: Thu, 22 May 2008 17:03:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Ulrich Weigand Cc: Pedro Alves , gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [patch] Re: longjmp handling vs. glibc LD_POINTER_GUARD ?problems Message-ID: <20080522031358.GA27933@caradoc.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Ulrich Weigand , Pedro Alves , gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <200805212339.50247.pedro@codesourcery.com> <200805220014.m4M0EPrT004321@d12av02.megacenter.de.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200805220014.m4M0EPrT004321@d12av02.megacenter.de.ibm.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2008-05-11) X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2008-05/txt/msg00658.txt.bz2 On Thu, May 22, 2008 at 02:14:25AM +0200, Ulrich Weigand wrote: > > But, x86 doesn't show any promise on that... The first time > > we stop seeing the longjmp frame on the frame stack is much > > earlier than the exit of longjmp: > > > > #0 0xf7e201d8 in ?? () from /lib32/libc.so.6 > > #1 0x00000001 in ?? () > > So what's happening there? Is this some unrelated unwinder > failure? My guess: longjmp tail called to __siglongmp or some similarly named not-exported function. So we can't find whatever frame setup there was. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery