From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 17533 invoked by alias); 1 Feb 2007 23:02:09 -0000 Received: (qmail 17523 invoked by uid 22791); 1 Feb 2007 23:02:08 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from nile.gnat.com (HELO nile.gnat.com) (205.232.38.5) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Thu, 01 Feb 2007 23:02:02 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-nile.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7353D48D002; Thu, 1 Feb 2007 18:02:00 -0500 (EST) Received: from nile.gnat.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (nile.gnat.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 24978-01-9; Thu, 1 Feb 2007 18:02:00 -0500 (EST) Received: from takamaka.act-europe.fr (unknown [70.71.0.212]) by nile.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2E17948CF70; Thu, 1 Feb 2007 18:02:00 -0500 (EST) Received: by takamaka.act-europe.fr (Postfix, from userid 1000) id C711034C099; Thu, 1 Feb 2007 15:03:01 -0800 (PST) Date: Thu, 01 Feb 2007 23:02:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Wiljan Derks , gdb@sourceware.org, Mark Kettenis Subject: Re: How to tell gdb about dlls using remote protocol Message-ID: <20070201230301.GM17864@adacore.com> References: <003f01c7457c$0f2d8090$9600000a@kamer> <20070131223113.GA15122@nevyn.them.org> <20070201175311.GG17864@adacore.com> <20070201225437.GA13740@nevyn.them.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20070201225437.GA13740@nevyn.them.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.2i Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2007-02/txt/msg00010.txt.bz2 > In general, if we can not find the start of the current function, > we have absolutely no chance of getting out of it. > > This is a standard problem e.g. with the Windows system DLLs, since > we have inadequate means to recover symbol information from them. At least on Windows, I think the change I proposed should help increase the odds in our favor in this situation. If I read the code correctly, the current approach will almost always fail, whereas using %ebp should get us somewhere sensible unless %ebp is used as a scratch register... -- Joel