Robert Schweikert wrote: > > Is there a way to figure out where things went wrong with this type of > traceback? > > Program terminated with signal 11, Segmentation fault. > #0 0x400035a6 in ?? () > (gdb) where > #0 0x400035a6 in ?? () > #1 0x4000bffc in ?? () > #2 0x40001f69 in ?? () > #3 0x40001eda in ?? () > > This is version 4.18 of gdb. > > The code was compiled with gcc 2.95.2 on RedHat 6.1 without the -g > option. However, shouldn't I still get a stacktrace that at least points > me to the routine where things went wrong. This is C++ code. > > Any help is appreciated. > Robert, The debug information contains, among many other things, where the functions start. If you have no debug information passed to the debugger it cannot guess where these addresses belong. Bottom line: if you want symbolic debugging, use "-g". -- Fernando Nasser Red Hat Canada Ltd. E-Mail: fnasser@redhat.com 2323 Yonge Street, Suite #300 Toronto, Ontario M4P 2C9 From chastain@cygnus.com Sat Dec 09 09:47:00 2000 From: Michael Elizabeth Chastain To: cadamuro@lit.cpdtt.cefetpr.br Cc: gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: GDB for powerpc-eabi under cygwin, Date: Sat, 09 Dec 2000 09:47:00 -0000 Message-id: <200012091750.JAA30627@train2.cygnus.com> X-SW-Source: 2000-12/msg00055.html Content-length: 379 Hello João, > 1. PowerPC simulator don't work for snapshot 2000-08-16. > > If you compile a simple "Hello Word" for the simulator and try to debug > it with GDB, you'll be "ejected"... I finished testing Jim Blandy's patch for this problem. It worked fine and I have committed it to sourceware. Michael Elizabeth Chastain < mailto:chastain@redhat.com > "love without fear" From rjschwei@mindspring.com Sat Dec 09 10:24:00 2000 From: Robert Schweikert To: Fernando Nasser Cc: gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: traceback troubles Date: Sat, 09 Dec 2000 10:24:00 -0000 Message-id: <3A32783C.65092D5B@mindspring.com> References: <3A321CD2.98CBC116@mindspring.com> <3A324945.8A78CD9@cygnus.com> X-SW-Source: 2000-12/msg00056.html Content-length: 2157 Fernando, Thanks, however my simple example below allows me to get the info I want without the -g compiler flag. void dumpCore() { char* null = 0; *null = 'a'; } void main (void) { dumpCore(); } ->g++ dump.C -> ./a.out Segmentation fault (core dumped) ->gdb a.out core #0 0x80486c0 in dumpCore () (gdb) where #0 0x80486c0 in dumpCore () #1 0x80486d3 in main () #2 0x400509cb in __libc_start_main (main=0x80486c8
, argc=1, argv=0xbffff554, init=0x80484d4 <_init>, fini=0x804a194 <_fini>, rtld_fini=0x4000ae60 <_dl_fini>, stack_end=0xbffff54c) at ../sysdeps/generic/libc-start.c:92 That's all the info I am after, the other stuff is a large application and globally compiling with debug mode will swell the code tremendously, plus it means a 6-7 hour recompile of all the code, since I don't know right now where things are blowing up. Is there anyway to figure out what's going on from the addresses? Thanks, Robert Fernando Nasser wrote: > Robert Schweikert wrote: > > > > Is there a way to figure out where things went wrong with this type of > > traceback? > > > > Program terminated with signal 11, Segmentation fault. > > #0 0x400035a6 in ?? () > > (gdb) where > > #0 0x400035a6 in ?? () > > #1 0x4000bffc in ?? () > > #2 0x40001f69 in ?? () > > #3 0x40001eda in ?? () > > > > This is version 4.18 of gdb. > > > > The code was compiled with gcc 2.95.2 on RedHat 6.1 without the -g > > option. However, shouldn't I still get a stacktrace that at least points > > me to the routine where things went wrong. This is C++ code. > > > > Any help is appreciated. > > > > Robert, > > The debug information contains, among many other things, where the > functions start. If you have no debug information passed to the debugger > it cannot guess where these addresses belong. > > Bottom line: if you want symbolic debugging, use "-g". > > -- > Fernando Nasser > Red Hat Canada Ltd. E-Mail: fnasser@redhat.com > 2323 Yonge Street, Suite #300 > Toronto, Ontario M4P 2C9 -- Robert Schweikert MAY THE SOURCE BE WITH YOU rjschwei@mindspring.com LINUX