From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 24266 invoked by alias); 22 Sep 2008 09:42:31 -0000 Received: (qmail 24248 invoked by uid 22791); 22 Sep 2008 09:42:31 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail.codesourcery.com (HELO mail.codesourcery.com) (65.74.133.4) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Mon, 22 Sep 2008 09:41:56 +0000 Received: (qmail 10125 invoked from network); 22 Sep 2008 09:41:42 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ?192.168.1.100?) (ams@127.0.0.2) by mail.codesourcery.com with ESMTPA; 22 Sep 2008 09:41:42 -0000 Message-ID: <48D76849.90806@codesourcery.com> Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2008 09:42:00 -0000 From: Andrew Stubbs User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.16 (X11/20080724) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Mark Kettenis CC: gdb@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [commited] Detect bad debug info References: <48D3EC6C.8050809@codesourcery.com> <200809192224.m8JMOHEh032757@brahms.sibelius.xs4all.nl> In-Reply-To: <200809192224.m8JMOHEh032757@brahms.sibelius.xs4all.nl> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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: 2008-09/txt/msg00117.txt.bz2 Mark Kettenis wrote: > Would it be possible to add some detail about this? "a particular > falvour of bad debug info" is pretty non-informative. Sorry, you've caught me out. :) I don't really know in what way the debug info was bad. I only have a bad binary (no source code, no compiler). I suspect that it had marked an a array as being in registers, rather than a pointer to the array, but it doesn't really matter. What I do know is that the effect was that the debugger was attempting to read an impossibly large quantity of data from the register file. The result was a assertion failure and a bad user experience. The patch ensures that the debugger never attempts to read beyond the end of the register file. Note that the binary in question comes from a proprietary compiler, and I believe that that has now been fixed. This change is merely a robustness enhancement. If you would like more details, please ask. Andrew Stubbs P.S. Sorry for posting the patch to the wrong list. Finger trouble. :(