From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 30566 invoked by alias); 6 May 2005 15:42:18 -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 30516 invoked from network); 6 May 2005 15:42:14 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO nevyn.them.org) (66.93.172.17) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 6 May 2005 15:42:14 -0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 4.50 #1 (Debian)) id 1DU4xy-0001P7-3k; Fri, 06 May 2005 11:42:14 -0400 Date: Fri, 06 May 2005 15:42:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Shaun Jackman Cc: gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: arm-elf-gdb crash Message-ID: <20050506154214.GA5359@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Shaun Jackman , gdb@sources.redhat.com References: <7f45d9390505052026171614fd@mail.gmail.com> <20050506033126.GA6920@nevyn.them.org> <7f45d9390505052049550222ec@mail.gmail.com> <20050506040840.GB7038@nevyn.them.org> <7f45d93905050608406479775b@mail.gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <7f45d93905050608406479775b@mail.gmail.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.8i X-SW-Source: 2005-05/txt/msg00072.txt.bz2 On Fri, May 06, 2005 at 08:40:00AM -0700, Shaun Jackman wrote: > On 5/5/05, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > > > 6.3.50.20050419 fixes the load bug, but fails when setting the $cpsr > > > (gdb) set $cpsr=0x1f > > > Value being assigned to is no longer active. > > > > > > Do you know if the $cpsr bug has been fixed in a recent snapshot? > > > > I discussed this with someone else on this list last week. It is an > > open bug but someone needs to sit down with it and think about the > > implications. > > The implications meaning the possible causes, or the implications of > possible solutions? The latter. > > I suspect that we've failed to create the first frame, somehow. > > Perhaps this would only defer the problem, but in the case of > assigning to a register that's never going away, could we skip the > check for a valid frame and plow ahead and write the register? GDB associates registers to frames. It's written to the assumption that there is always a frame; when there isn't, this is just one of many things that is going to go wrong. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery, LLC