Re: "run", and executable file/symtab association?

[Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org>]

On Sat, Feb 18, 2006 at 05:53:56PM +0800, Randolph Chung wrote:
> >If kill_inferior calls pop_target it'd better be expecting to close a
> >native target, not the exec target further down the stack.  This looks
> >like a bug in the checkpoint code somewhere.  Ugh, the bits in
> >kill_inferior are a little scary.  First thing to do: figure out what's
> >on the target stack (follow current_target.beneath), and why it's got
> >execution if it's popping exec_close.
> 
> The target stack looks like:
> 
> (top-gdb) print current_target->to_shortname
> $2 = 0x334298 "child"
> (top-gdb) print current_target->beneath->to_shortname
> $3 = 0x334298 "child"
> (top-gdb) print current_target->beneath->beneath->to_shortname
> $4 = 0x2d7d6c "exec"
> (top-gdb) print current_target->beneath->beneath->beneath->to_shortname
> $5 = 0x312614 "None"
> 
> And to_close is:
> (top-gdb) print current_target->to_close
> $6 = (void (*)(int)) @0x38465a: 0x47954 <exec_close>

pop_target calls current_target->to_close.  I am suspecting that it
should call target_stack->to_close instead.

> I don't pretend to understand this code and why if there are forks, we 
> should be popping the target to kill everything.

I don't either.

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery