From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 28427 invoked by alias); 9 Nov 2009 14:59:40 -0000 Received: (qmail 28419 invoked by uid 22791); 9 Nov 2009 14:59:40 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail.codesourcery.com (HELO mail.codesourcery.com) (38.113.113.100) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Mon, 09 Nov 2009 14:59:36 +0000 Received: (qmail 311 invoked from network); 9 Nov 2009 14:59:34 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ?192.168.9.129?) (daniel@127.0.0.2) by mail.codesourcery.com with ESMTPA; 9 Nov 2009 14:59:34 -0000 Message-ID: <4AF82E4E.8000500@codesourcery.com> Date: Mon, 09 Nov 2009 14:59:00 -0000 From: Daniel Gutson User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (X11/20090817) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Michael Snyder CC: "gdb-patches@sourceware.org" Subject: Re: [PATCH] gcore registers storing fix References: <4AF4A505.4010600@codesourcery.com> <4AF72404.1070808@vmware.com> In-Reply-To: <4AF72404.1070808@vmware.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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: 2009-11/txt/msg00136.txt.bz2 Hi Michael, Michael Snyder wrote: > Daniel Gutson wrote: >> The attached patch attempts to solve a bug that caused the gcore >> command to produce core files containing incorrect registers >> information. The problem caused incomplete backtraces when the files >> were read back into GDB. >> >> I tested this patch with the gdb testsuite, and my addition to the >> gcore-thread.exp test case. >> >> If OK, please commit it for me since I don't have write access. > > What host configuration is this for? native gdb: solaris-sparc > > At first glance, the procfs change looks ok (but I'm no longer > up to date on procfs). I have some doubt about the test change. > > You say in your comment, "The threads should be standing at a > known function, rather than ??". I'm not sure how we can know > that. The threads may have been stopped anywhere, and it's > always possible to find a library with no symbols. What would you suggest? I could bound the check to the current frame. Thanks for reviewing, Daniel. -- Daniel Gutson CodeSourcery www.codesourcery.com