From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 30799 invoked by alias); 18 Jan 2005 21:53:18 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 30612 invoked from network); 18 Jan 2005 21:53:10 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO viper.snap.net.nz) (202.37.101.8) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 18 Jan 2005 21:53:10 -0000 Received: from farnswood.snap.net.nz (p61-tnt1.snap.net.nz [202.124.110.61]) by viper.snap.net.nz (Postfix) with ESMTP id C9315231320; Wed, 19 Jan 2005 10:53:08 +1300 (NZDT) Received: by farnswood.snap.net.nz (Postfix, from userid 501) id 3379C628AD; Tue, 18 Jan 2005 21:45:36 +0000 (GMT) From: Nick Roberts MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <16877.33664.336543.446168@farnswood.snap.net.nz> Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2005 21:53:00 -0000 To: Andrew Cagney Cc: gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: internal-error: insert_step_resume_breakpoint_at_sal In-Reply-To: <41ED5C15.7070401@gnu.org> References: <16804.1142.136766.593493@farnswood.snap.net.nz> <16874.17961.812024.375273@farnswood.snap.net.nz> <41ED5C15.7070401@gnu.org> X-SW-Source: 2005-01/txt/msg00093.txt.bz2 > > Second time: > > > > #0 internal_error (file=0x8221657 "infrun.c", line=2668, > > string=0x81ef7a1 "%s: Assertion `%s' failed.") at utils.c:789 > > #1 0x080fbdda in insert_step_resume_breakpoint_at_sal (sr_sal= > > {symtab = 0x0, section = 0x0, line = 0, pc = 134872212, end = 0}, sr_id= > > {stack_addr = 3221220224, code_addr = 134872206, special_addr = 0, stack_addr_p = 1, code_addr_p = 1, special_addr_p = 0}) at infrun.c:2672 > > ... and this sal/id look identical (true?). Well symtab = 0x0 looks unassigned to me. > This suggests that rather than inserting two different step-resume > breakpoints it's inserting the same one twice (for possibly different > reasons). > > Is it possible to determine exactly why the step-resume breakpoint is > being inserted for each of these cases? If we know that the testsuite > becomes possible, and with a testsuite a fix. You'll probably need to give me a few clues. First time round, stop_signal = TARGET_SIGNAL_0, and second time, stop_signal = TARGET_SIGNAL_IO. Does that tell you anything? Nick