From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-return-19345-listarch-gdb=sources.redhat.com@sources.redhat.com>
Received: (qmail 22398 invoked by alias); 7 Sep 2004 12:55:57 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gdb-subscribe@sources.redhat.com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb/>
List-Post: <mailto:gdb@sources.redhat.com>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-help@sources.redhat.com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: gdb-owner@sources.redhat.com
Received: (qmail 22369 invoked from network); 7 Sep 2004 12:55:56 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO web61203.mail.yahoo.com) (216.155.196.127)
  by sourceware.org with SMTP; 7 Sep 2004 12:55:56 -0000
Message-ID: <20040907125555.56455.qmail@web61203.mail.yahoo.com>
Received: from [81.80.165.125] by web61203.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Tue, 07 Sep 2004 05:55:55 PDT
Date: Tue, 07 Sep 2004 12:55:00 -0000
From: Thierry <goldy_gnu@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: GDB 6.2 for ARM: bug in backtrace when in Thumb mode
To: Richard Earnshaw <rearnsha@gcc.gnu.org>
Cc: gdb@sources.redhat.com
In-Reply-To: <1094560059.8831.9.camel@pc960.cambridge.arm.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-SW-Source: 2004-09/txt/msg00051.txt.bz2

No, indeed, it wasn't (I'm working with gcc 3.4).
I'll wait for gcc 3.5, then!

Thank you Richard.


--- Richard Earnshaw <rearnsha@gcc.gnu.org> wrote:

> On Tue, 2004-09-07 at 13:02, Thierry wrote:
> > Hi there,
> >  
> > I'm trying to debug an application compiled for the
> > ARM in Thumb mode. The 'backtrace' command seems buggy
> > as soon as there are more than 4 levels in the stack.
> > Besides, with the same code compiled in ARM mode, it
> > works perfectly.
> >  
> > Here's an example:
> >  
> > void dummy2(int a)
> > {
> >    int b;
> >    b = a;
> > }
> >  
> > void dummy1(void)
> > {
> >    dummy2(4);
> > }
> >  
> > void dummy(void)
> > {
> >    dummy1();
> > }
> >  
> > In my 'main', I call 'dummy()'.
> > 
> > When I go step-by-step until I step into 'dummy2', the
> > 'bt' command gives the following result:
> > #0  dummy2 (a=4) at MainModule/src/dummy.c:4
> > #1  0xc000039c in dummy1 () at
> > MainModule/src/dummy.c:9
> > #2  0x00000000 in ?? ()
> >  
> > which is wrong!
> >  
> > The files have been compiled with arm-elf-gcc with the
> > following options:
> > -ggdb -gdwarf-2 -c -mapcs -fomit-frame-pointer -mthumb
> > -mthumb-interwork -mlong-calls
> > -fsigned-char -mstructure-size-boundary=8
> > -fshort-enums
> > 
> > When I remove the option '-fomit-frame-pointer', it
> > works.
> >  
> > Any idea?
> >  
> 
> Most (all?) Released versions of gcc don't generate unwind information
> for Thumb functions, so the unwinder gets confused if there's no frame
> pointer.
> 
> It will be fixed in gcc-3.5, but I don't think it was fixed in time for
> gcc-3.4.
> 
> R.
> 



		
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Get it on your mobile phone.
http://mobile.yahoo.com/maildemo