From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-return-19427-listarch-gdb=sources.redhat.com@sources.redhat.com>
Received: (qmail 18833 invoked by alias); 15 Sep 2004 22:46:15 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gdb-subscribe@sources.redhat.com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb/>
List-Post: <mailto:gdb@sources.redhat.com>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-help@sources.redhat.com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: gdb-owner@sources.redhat.com
Received: (qmail 18823 invoked from network); 15 Sep 2004 22:46:12 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31)
  by sourceware.org with SMTP; 15 Sep 2004 22:46:12 -0000
Received: from int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (int-mx1.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.254])
	by mx1.redhat.com (8.12.11/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i8FMk7AQ017654
	for <gdb@sources.redhat.com>; Wed, 15 Sep 2004 18:46:07 -0400
Received: from localhost.redhat.com (porkchop.devel.redhat.com [172.16.58.2])
	by int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i8FMk1r03760;
	Wed, 15 Sep 2004 18:46:01 -0400
Received: from gnu.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 3A50B28D2; Wed, 15 Sep 2004 18:43:49 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <4148C5A4.5000104@gnu.org>
Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2004 22:46:00 -0000
From: Andrew Cagney <cagney@gnu.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; NetBSD macppc; en-GB; rv:1.4.1) Gecko/20040831
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org>
Cc: gdb@sources.redhat.com
Subject: Re: Abort backtrace when consecutive zero PCs?
References: <41487D1D.7040504@gnu.org> <20040915221329.GA28732@nevyn.them.org>
In-Reply-To: <20040915221329.GA28732@nevyn.them.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-SW-Source: 2004-09/txt/msg00133.txt.bz2

> On Wed, Sep 15, 2004 at 01:34:21PM -0400, Andrew Cagney wrote:
> 
>>> Hello,
>>> 
>>> One backtrace infinite loop case I've noticed (especially on ia64) is 
>>> where successive frames all have a zero PC.
>>> 
>>> While we definitly need to allow a backtrace through a single zero PC 
>>> (for a NULL pointer call - signull.exp) should we make GDB abort when 
>>> two or more consecutive frames have a zero PC?
>>> 
>>> (mumble something about a runtime option)
>>> 
>>> thoughts?
> 
> 
> I still think that you

me or we?  Do you have a pointer to the thread?

 > want to reject zero PC followed by a normal
> (non-signal/dummy) frame, for exactly this reason...

That sounds like a NULL pointer function call, which is what signull.exp 
is all about.

Andrew