Re: gdb stack trace problems (Addendum)

[Roland Schwingel <roland.schwingel@onevision.de>]

Hi...

Mark Kettenis wrote on 22.04.2005 19:51:14:
 >    Hi Mark...
 >
 >    Have you already had some time to look into it?
 >
 > I did, but I didn't have find the time to reply yet ;-).
Thank you very much...
 
 > Anyway, there is a serious problem here.  The code you show is
 > basically undebuggable.
 > [...]
 > The only thing we can do here is trust the frame pointer, like we used
 > to do in the old days.  The problem with that is that it's very likely
 > to (silently) skip some function calls.  In your particular example it
 > probably would appear as if your code called SleepEx directly and
 > there would be no trace of Sleep at all.  That can be quite puzzling.
 >
 > I'm thinking about adding an option to instruct gdb to "trust" the
 > frame pointer.  I'm not going to make it the default though.  I really
 > prefer seeing an abviously wrong backtrace over gdb silently skipping
 > function calls in its backtraces.
Well the present situation is quite problematic for us. In past days 
(gdb 5.3)
when an application crashed we had a quite accurate backtrace. It wasn't
wrong (for us). Finding/Fixing bugs was very easy. GDB has been
very useful here.

With gdb 6.x we are no longer able to get a backtrace in these cases (in 
about
95% of all cases). This is a serious problem and makes gdb 6.x quite 
unusable
for us (and maybe others on windows). Having at least an option for enabling
that feature would be IMHO absolutely necessary. I wonder why other users
on windows haven't complained earlier about this problem.

So will you implement such an option? I am quite unfamiliar with the 
internals
of gdb's stack unwinding, so I am not of much help here. But whenever I can
do something to help to fix this I am happily volunteering to do so.

Thanks again for your help Mark!

Roland