From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 10872 invoked by alias); 29 Apr 2009 19:12:34 -0000 Received: (qmail 10855 invoked by uid 22791); 29 Apr 2009 19:12:29 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from NaN.false.org (HELO nan.false.org) (208.75.86.248) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Wed, 29 Apr 2009 19:12:19 +0000 Received: from nan.false.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 69D3210738; Wed, 29 Apr 2009 19:12:17 +0000 (GMT) Received: from caradoc.them.org (209.195.188.212.nauticom.net [209.195.188.212]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 540E610554; Wed, 29 Apr 2009 19:12:17 +0000 (GMT) Received: from drow by caradoc.them.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1LzFCa-00082Y-Gf; Wed, 29 Apr 2009 15:12:16 -0400 Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2009 19:23:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Eli Zaretskii Cc: gdb@sourceware.org Subject: Re: Debugging a frameless function Message-ID: <20090429191216.GA30562@caradoc.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Eli Zaretskii , gdb@sourceware.org References: <83zldzco0p.fsf@gnu.org> <20090429183946.GA28155@caradoc.them.org> <83ws93cmp0.fsf@gnu.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <83ws93cmp0.fsf@gnu.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2008-05-11) 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: 2009-04/txt/msg00221.txt.bz2 On Wed, Apr 29, 2009 at 09:57:31PM +0300, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > > Sounds like the debug info is bad. > > But then why does GDB 6.1 have no problems debugging the same binary? I have no idea. > > Check manually, using readelf -wi (and -wo if location lists are in > > use). > > I cannot use readelf, because DJGPP executables are not ELF files. Objdump has similar options, if your binutils is recent enough. I don't know how recent that is. I believe it's objdump -W. Mark's got a good point - some older GCC's just botch the debug info. What compiler are we looking at here? -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery