From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 21937 invoked by alias); 2 Sep 2006 00:05:16 -0000 Received: (qmail 21929 invoked by uid 22791); 2 Sep 2006 00:05:16 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx2.palmsource.com (HELO mx2.palmsource.com) (12.7.175.14) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Sat, 02 Sep 2006 00:05:13 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.domain.tld (Postfix) with ESMTP id 17B7126D07; Fri, 1 Sep 2006 17:05:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx2.palmsource.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mx2.palmsource.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 27312-02-2; Fri, 1 Sep 2006 17:05:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ussunex01.palmsource.com (unknown [192.168.101.9]) by mx2.palmsource.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0FD5326D00; Fri, 1 Sep 2006 17:05:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from 192.168.92.59 ([192.168.92.59]) by ussunex01.palmsource.com ([192.168.101.9]) via Exchange Front-End Server owa.palmsource.com ([10.0.20.17]) with Microsoft Exchange Server HTTP-DAV ; Sat, 2 Sep 2006 00:05:10 +0000 Received: from svmsnyderlnx by owa.palmsource.com; 01 Sep 2006 17:05:09 -0700 Subject: Re: Error running remote gdb From: Michael Snyder To: Daniel Jacobowitz Cc: gdb@sourceware.org In-Reply-To: <20060901040853.GB27656@nevyn.them.org> References: <1157081494.4466.71.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20060901040853.GB27656@nevyn.them.org> Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Sat, 02 Sep 2006 00:05:00 -0000 Message-Id: <1157155509.4466.96.camel@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.4.1 X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2006-09/txt/msg00022.txt.bz2 On Fri, 2006-09-01 at 00:08 -0400, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > On Thu, Aug 31, 2006 at 08:31:34PM -0700, Michael Snyder wrote: > > The last message from gdb to the target, "$vCont;s:6098;c#67", > > doesn't seem to make sense. > > Does to me. Probably breakpoint_here_p has failed, for some reason. I meant, "doesn't make sense unless something else is wrong". Ie., if for instance breakpoint_here_p has NOT failed, then gdb should have stepped over the breakpoint before continuing. I wonder why breakpoint_here_p would fail? It's a fairly simple function, there's only one breakpoint, and it doesn't fail very commonly (to my knowledge). > I've seen this related to DECR_PC_AFTER_BREAK breakage, but on PPC > that's unlikely unless the GDB in question is very badly misconfigured. Right -- well, if that's the case, then it will still fail if Bizhan runs the experiment that I suggested, with vCont out of the picture. We should see gdb issue an ordinary continue request, without first stepping over the breakpoint.