From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 18135 invoked by alias); 15 Jul 2006 06:38:41 -0000 Received: (qmail 18127 invoked by uid 22791); 15 Jul 2006 06:38:41 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from sibelius.xs4all.nl (HELO sibelius.xs4all.nl) (82.92.89.47) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Sat, 15 Jul 2006 06:38:39 +0000 Received: from elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl (root@elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl [192.168.0.2]) by sibelius.xs4all.nl (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id k6F6cYce014068; Sat, 15 Jul 2006 08:38:34 +0200 (CEST) Received: from elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl (kettenis@localhost.sibelius.xs4all.nl [127.0.0.1]) by elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id k6F6cXsZ006026; Sat, 15 Jul 2006 08:38:33 +0200 (CEST) Received: (from kettenis@localhost) by elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl (8.13.6/8.13.6/Submit) id k6F6cX2b004937; Sat, 15 Jul 2006 08:38:33 +0200 (CEST) Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2006 13:50:00 -0000 Message-Id: <200607150638.k6F6cX2b004937@elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl> From: Mark Kettenis To: bgholikh@cisco.com CC: gdb@sourceware.org In-reply-to: (bgholikh@cisco.com) Subject: Re: Help: corrupt Stack References: Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2006-07/txt/msg00096.txt.bz2 > Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2006 17:33:49 -0700 > From: "Bizhan Gholikhamseh \(bgholikh\)" > > Hi All, > We are using gdb version 6.3. When we ran gdb on the core dump > generated, it complains with following messages: > "Previous frame identical to this frame (corrupt stack?)" > Is this a known bug, is there a work around or patch > available? What makes you think this is a bug in GDB? One of the possible reasons your program dumped core could be because it did thrash the stack. Another possibility is that your code doesn't include enough debug information or even wrong debug information, which confuses GDB a bit. Of course it is still possible that GDB is confused with itself because there is a bug in its stack unwinding code. But if you don't give us more information, there's no way we can tell. Mark