From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 23036 invoked by alias); 7 Feb 2007 22:17:06 -0000 Received: (qmail 23025 invoked by uid 22791); 7 Feb 2007 22:17:05 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from nevyn.them.org (HELO nevyn.them.org) (66.93.172.17) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31.1) with ESMTP; Wed, 07 Feb 2007 22:16:56 +0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1HEv5o-0006zK-Rz; Wed, 07 Feb 2007 17:16:44 -0500 Date: Wed, 07 Feb 2007 22:17:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Mark Kettenis Cc: brobecker@adacore.com, Wiljan.Derks@zonnet.nl, gdb@sourceware.org Subject: Re: How to tell gdb about dlls using remote protocol Message-ID: <20070207221644.GA26833@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Mark Kettenis , brobecker@adacore.com, Wiljan.Derks@zonnet.nl, gdb@sourceware.org References: <003f01c7457c$0f2d8090$9600000a@kamer> <20070131223113.GA15122@nevyn.them.org> <20070201175311.GG17864@adacore.com> <200702072214.l17MER45023107@brahms.sibelius.xs4all.nl> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200702072214.l17MER45023107@brahms.sibelius.xs4all.nl> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11) X-IsSubscribed: yes 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/msg00045.txt.bz2 On Wed, Feb 07, 2007 at 11:14:27PM +0100, Mark Kettenis wrote: > I think this diff makes sense. However, I'm pretty sure there are > Linux systems out there where this will make things worse :(. In > particular, on kernels with a vsyscall page buit without the stub > shared library for that page, this change will systematically skip a > frame. And that frame is quite crucial since it is the frame for the > libc system call stub, so it will be hard for a user to find out in > what system call the program is blocked on. > > I have no idea though how many people are still runing those kernels. > That number might be very low enough for us not to care. For what it's worth, I think it is. And, if it isn't, it would be straightforward to add a custom frame sniffer to i386-linux-tdep.c to recognize that case. I don't know what the affected versions are, though. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery