From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 26594 invoked by alias); 17 Aug 2004 14:10:15 -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 26587 invoked from network); 17 Aug 2004 14:10:14 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO nevyn.them.org) (66.93.172.17) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 17 Aug 2004 14:10:14 -0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 4.34 #1 (Debian)) id 1Bx4fG-0002Ob-1Y; Tue, 17 Aug 2004 10:10:14 -0400 Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2004 14:10:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: David Lecomber Cc: gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: Opteron Stack Woes Message-ID: <20040817141014.GA9175@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: David Lecomber , gdb@sources.redhat.com References: <1092744111.3127.25.camel@cpc4-oxfd5-5-0-cust12.oxfd.cable.ntl.com> <20040817131057.GA7719@nevyn.them.org> <1092750299.3127.34.camel@cpc4-oxfd5-5-0-cust12.oxfd.cable.ntl.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1092750299.3127.34.camel@cpc4-oxfd5-5-0-cust12.oxfd.cable.ntl.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.5.1+cvs20040105i X-SW-Source: 2004-08/txt/msg00229.txt.bz2 On Tue, Aug 17, 2004 at 02:44:59PM +0100, David Lecomber wrote: > Thanks Daniel, > > > readelf -wF is probably your best bet. But is the only problem the > > fact that the backtrace didn't stop at _start? > > I've seen worse stack traces than this on the Opteron, particularly one > that had Lustre kernel patches applied -- but I don't know if that was > related.. I'll keep an eye out for further problems. > > I figured that the "Incomplete CFI data" might be an issue. I don't > know enough about this area yet to do anything.. It's not a problem - take a look in the archive. > > > You might want to investigate why the backtrace didn't stop earlier, at > > main or at a fortran entry point. GDB may be confused about > > main_name(). > > Attached is the readelf -wF info, can you see anything wrong with the > 0x040d7ad entry? No, it looks fine. -- Daniel Jacobowitz