From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-return-29089-listarch-gdb=sources.redhat.com@sourceware.org>
Received: (qmail 19507 invoked by alias); 10 Jul 2007 19:50:31 -0000
Received: (qmail 19499 invoked by uid 22791); 10 Jul 2007 19:50:30 -0000
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from mail.artimi.com (HELO mail.artimi.com) (194.72.81.2)     by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Tue, 10 Jul 2007 19:50:25 +0000
Received: from rainbow ([192.168.8.46]) by mail.artimi.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); 	 Tue, 10 Jul 2007 20:50:22 +0100
From: "Dave Korn" <dave.korn@artimi.com>
To: "'Daniel Jacobowitz'" <drow@false.org>
Cc: "'Hadron'" <rileyrg@googlemail.com>, 	"'Nick Roberts'" <nickrob@snap.net.nz>, 	"'Jim Blandy'" <jimb@codesourcery.com>, 	"'Hadron'" <hadronquark@googlemail.com>, 	<gdb@sourceware.org>
References: <87ejjhg137.fsf@gmail.com> <m3r6nh70gm.fsf@codesourcery.com> <18066.47080.812496.129394@kahikatea.snap.net.nz> <87hcoc5uef.fsf@gmail.com> <00a401c7c32a$567046f0$2e08a8c0@CAM.ARTIMI.COM> <20070710194642.GA27388@caradoc.them.org>
Subject: RE: argc - cant access memory
Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2007 19:50:00 -0000
Message-ID: <00a601c7c32b$8d4b4980$2e08a8c0@CAM.ARTIMI.COM>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; 	charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11
In-Reply-To: <20070710194642.GA27388@caradoc.them.org>
Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gdb.sourceware.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gdb-subscribe@sourceware.org>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb/>
List-Post: <mailto:gdb@sourceware.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-help@sourceware.org>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: gdb-owner@sourceware.org
X-SW-Source: 2007-07/txt/msg00083.txt.bz2

On 10 July 2007 20:47, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:

> On Tue, Jul 10, 2007 at 08:41:40PM +0100, Dave Korn wrote:
>>   This is normal behaviour.  It's nothing to do with optimisation:
> 
> Actually, I expect this is the problem specific to "main" that we've
> seen before; it is caused by stack alignment code that recent GCCs
> emit on x86, to accomodate SSE.

  Ah, is the stack adjustment code not marked as frame-related?  I guess that
would do it ...

    cheers,
      DaveK
-- 
Can't think of a witty .sigline today....