From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 14347 invoked by alias); 20 Jul 2009 01:47:53 -0000 Received: (qmail 14337 invoked by uid 22791); 20 Jul 2009 01:47:52 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from qw-out-1920.google.com (HELO qw-out-1920.google.com) (74.125.92.145) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Mon, 20 Jul 2009 01:47:46 +0000 Received: by qw-out-1920.google.com with SMTP id 5so854452qwf.24 for ; Sun, 19 Jul 2009 18:47:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.224.60.203 with SMTP id q11mr2299403qah.376.1248054463956; Sun, 19 Jul 2009 18:47:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hotblack.localnet ([189.4.46.16]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 6sm6414947qwd.42.2009.07.19.18.47.42 (version=SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Sun, 19 Jul 2009 18:47:43 -0700 (PDT) From: Thiago Jung Bauermann To: gdb@sourceware.org Subject: Re: Backtracing broken core dumps Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2009 01:47:00 -0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.11.4 (Linux/2.6.30-1-amd64; KDE/4.2.4; x86_64; ; ) Cc: Andreas Schwab , "Catherine Smith" References: <8889C7D9C664436F8F547CB15F53C01C@Catherine> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200907192249.05343.thiago.bauermann@gmail.com> 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: 2009-07/txt/msg00130.txt.bz2 Em Domingo 19 Julho 2009 13:11:26 Andreas Schwab escreveu: > "Catherine Smith" writes: > > I have attempted to find back traces of several core dumps > > which have resulted from executing damaged pointers to > > functions, or null pointers to functions. > > Sometimes a gdb command of the form > > > > set pc=$lr > > > > would help, except that gdb says > > > > (gdb) set pc=$lr > > You can't do that without a process to debug > > Try using the frame command, passing it the address of the frame you > want to examine. IIRC Ulrich Weigand considers that usage of the frame command to be deprecated... I don't know the rationale though. -- []'s Thiago Jung Bauermann