From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 31827 invoked by alias); 27 Oct 2003 15:23:18 -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 31815 invoked from network); 27 Oct 2003 15:23:17 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO nevyn.them.org) (66.93.172.17) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 27 Oct 2003 15:23:17 -0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 4.24 #1 (Debian)) id 1AE9D9-0007K0-Vp; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 10:23:15 -0500 Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2003 15:23:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Andrew Cagney Cc: Jon Ringle , gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: Infinite backtrace on arm Message-ID: <20031027152315.GA28089@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Andrew Cagney , Jon Ringle , gdb@sources.redhat.com References: <200310260028.13745.jon.ringle@comdial.com> <20031027145320.GA26422@nevyn.them.org> <3F9D3812.2090801@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3F9D3812.2090801@redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.1i X-SW-Source: 2003-10/txt/msg00287.txt.bz2 On Mon, Oct 27, 2003 at 10:21:54AM -0500, Andrew Cagney wrote: > >The problem is that there's not much GDB can do with hand-coded > >assembly functions. > > > >However, GDB ought to be able to detect and stop that loop without any > >of this. It seems to me that the problem is not two frames with the > >same PC, but two frames with their PC "saved" in the same place - i.e. > >GDB failing to figure out where the PC is saved. This is made a little > >tricky in current versions of GDB, because the PC is normally unwound > >using frame_pc_unwind (which doesn't tell us where it was saved, since > >the interface doesn't assume it's a single normal register), and the > >core code doesn't have a concept of a "PC register" any more. > > > >Andrew, any idea on how to do this? > > Before anything else, find out what a current GDB does - its code to > detect a "corrupt stack" is now much improved. I'll check - I don't have my test for this problem handy any more but I know as of a month or two ago the problem still existed. -- Daniel Jacobowitz MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer