From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 30738 invoked by alias); 27 Dec 2009 21:37:34 -0000 Received: (qmail 30727 invoked by uid 22791); 27 Dec 2009 21:37:33 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from sibelius.xs4all.nl (HELO glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl) (83.163.83.176) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Sun, 27 Dec 2009 21:37:29 +0000 Received: from glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl (kettenis@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id nBRLbL8Q023449; Sun, 27 Dec 2009 22:37:21 +0100 (CET) Received: (from kettenis@localhost) by glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl (8.14.3/8.14.3/Submit) id nBRLbJPq029640; Sun, 27 Dec 2009 22:37:19 +0100 (CET) Date: Sun, 27 Dec 2009 21:37:00 -0000 Message-Id: <200912272137.nBRLbJPq029640@glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl> From: Mark Kettenis To: drow@false.org CC: mark.kettenis@xs4all.nl, gdb-patches@sourceware.org, matz@suse.de In-reply-to: <20091227165916.GA24409@caradoc.them.org> (message from Daniel Jacobowitz on Sun, 27 Dec 2009 11:59:16 -0500) Subject: Re: RFC: %ebp-based backtrace patch References: <20090706183316.GA26074@caradoc.them.org> <200907062157.n66LvSVF007634@brahms.sibelius.xs4all.nl> <20090707130040.GA11040@caradoc.them.org> <200907080901.n6891GVC029930@brahms.sibelius.xs4all.nl> <20090708125330.GA29881@caradoc.them.org> <20091227165916.GA24409@caradoc.them.org> 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: 2009-12/txt/msg00403.txt.bz2 > Date: Sun, 27 Dec 2009 11:59:16 -0500 > From: Daniel Jacobowitz > > On Wed, Jul 08, 2009 at 08:53:30AM -0400, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > > On Wed, Jul 08, 2009 at 11:01:16AM +0200, Mark Kettenis wrote: > > > Before comitting this diff, I ran the testsuite, and noticed a > > > regression. The problem is that if you do a function call through a > > > null-function-pointer or an otherwise corrupt function pointer, and > > > get a SIGSEGV, the backtrace no longer shows the frame that did the > > > function call. > > > > > > Until we come up with a way to fix this issue, I'm not going to commit > > > the diff. > > > > Hmm. if (target_read_memory (pc, buf, 1)) ? That's how a similar > > issue is handled on ARM, in arm_stub_unwind_sniffer. > > Hi Mark, > > I was looking through Ubuntu's local GDB patches and noticed this one > is still outstanding. Will the above work? I can test and > (hopefully) commit it, if you'd like. Sorry, but I don't see how this would solve things. Do you have a diff for me to look at?