From: Jim Blandy <jimb@red-bean.com>
To: NZG <ngustavson@emacinc.com>
Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org,
Carlos Manuel Duclos Vergara <carlos@embedded.cl>,
"Friedrich, Lars" <lars.friedrich@wago.com>
Subject: Re: gdb code review, pointer madness
Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2006 21:27:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <8f2776cb0601241327t4b9e4820l532d1133484879bb@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <200601241328.33774.ngustavson@emacinc.com>
On 1/24/06, NZG <ngustavson@emacinc.com> wrote:
> Looks like this particular flaw is an optimization trick, digging down farther
> the correct pointer does appear to get there.
>
> Something is wrong with the frame call on the sential frame (because it
> crashes the debugger) but this is not it.
Well, if you are able to come up with some reproduction instructions
that don't require exotic hardware, let us know.
The sentinel frame should be very simple to deal with: "unwinding" a
register from the sentinel frame simply returns its current value from
the chip. If you're not getting the current registers' values unwound
from the sentinel frame, then GDB simply isn't getting the register
values right; you'll need to look at the communication between GDB and
the board.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2006-01-24 21:27 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 37+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2006-01-23 20:39 NZG
2006-01-23 20:48 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2006-01-23 20:51 ` Jim Blandy
2006-01-24 17:19 ` NZG
2006-01-24 19:29 ` NZG
2006-01-24 21:27 ` Jim Blandy [this message]
2006-01-24 21:58 ` NZG
2006-01-24 22:11 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2006-01-25 0:01 ` Jim Blandy
2006-01-25 4:41 ` Eli Zaretskii
2006-01-25 4:59 ` Jim Blandy
2006-01-25 5:25 ` Jim Blandy
2006-01-25 17:21 ` Eli Zaretskii
2006-01-25 18:49 ` Jim Blandy
2006-01-25 19:58 ` Eli Zaretskii
2006-01-25 17:15 ` Eli Zaretskii
2006-01-26 16:19 ` NZG
2006-01-26 16:43 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2006-01-26 19:55 ` frame theory, was " NZG
2006-01-26 19:59 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2006-01-26 20:17 ` NZG
2006-01-26 20:22 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2006-01-26 21:21 ` Mark Kettenis
2006-01-26 21:54 ` NZG
2006-01-26 22:40 ` Mark Kettenis
2006-01-26 22:44 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2006-01-26 23:27 ` remote connection crash, was frame theory NZG
2006-01-26 23:32 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2006-01-26 23:42 ` Jim Blandy
2006-01-26 23:45 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2006-01-26 23:57 ` Jim Blandy
2006-01-27 0:04 ` NZG
2006-01-30 17:02 ` 5282 gdb Eclipse MI support, was remote connection crash NZG
2006-01-26 23:47 ` frame theory, was pointer madness Accounts
2006-01-26 23:16 ` Jim Blandy
2006-01-26 23:39 ` Jim Blandy
2006-01-27 7:19 ` Eli Zaretskii
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=8f2776cb0601241327t4b9e4820l532d1133484879bb@mail.gmail.com \
--to=jimb@red-bean.com \
--cc=carlos@embedded.cl \
--cc=gdb-patches@sourceware.org \
--cc=lars.friedrich@wago.com \
--cc=ngustavson@emacinc.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox