From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 368 invoked by alias); 18 May 2006 03:15:50 -0000 Received: (qmail 356 invoked by uid 22791); 18 May 2006 03:15:49 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from intranet.codesourcery.com (HELO mail.codesourcery.com) (65.74.133.6) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Thu, 18 May 2006 03:15:32 +0000 Received: (qmail 9643 invoked from network); 18 May 2006 03:15:30 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO localhost) (jimb@127.0.0.2) by mail.codesourcery.com with ESMTPA; 18 May 2006 03:15:30 -0000 To: Joel Brobecker Cc: PAUL GILLIAM , Daniel Jacobowitz , Mark Kettenis , gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [RFC] Move the frame zero PC check earlier References: <20060510180312.GA12606@nevyn.them.org> <200605130946.k4D9kZ2M001331@elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl> <20060513151338.GB3721@nevyn.them.org> <200605131642.k4DGgiqa018273@elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl> <20060516204503.GC13210@nevyn.them.org> <200605162137.k4GLbZiS014187@elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl> <20060516221837.GA15617@nevyn.them.org> <1147815745.3672.163.camel@dufur.beaverton.ibm.com> <20060517155729.GF27234@adacore.com> From: Jim Blandy Date: Thu, 18 May 2006 09:31:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <20060517155729.GF27234@adacore.com> (Joel Brobecker's message of "Wed, 17 May 2006 08:57:29 -0700") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.0.50 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-IsSubscribed: yes 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: 2006-05/txt/msg00397.txt.bz2 Joel Brobecker writes: > FWIW, I read the whole thread a couple of times, and I agree with > Daniel. Something that I have also noticed is that these bogus > frames actually cause the average users to lose confidence in the > entire backtrace. > > I think that stopping at PC == 0 for all architecture is a good > approach, and his justification for it is convincinng. For the record, at the top of this thread I said I thought it was fine, too. I've run into these often enough due to deliberate attempts by runtimes to terminate the stack that I think it outweighs the (minor, to my mind) value of seeing a 0x00000000 frame that indicates an actual error. GDB should be honest with the user about what it finds, but I don't think we can be a multi-platform debugger and be that picky about confining each bit of logic to exactly the platforms that promise to uphold it.