From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 4975 invoked by alias); 23 Mar 2009 13:12:26 -0000 Received: (qmail 4966 invoked by uid 22791); 23 Mar 2009 13:12:25 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=2.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,BOTNET,RDNS_NONE X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from Unknown (HELO andromeda.onevision.de) (212.77.172.62) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Mon, 23 Mar 2009 13:12:21 +0000 Received: from [192.168.5.120] (kgi05104.onevision.de [192.168.5.120]) by andromeda.onevision.de (8.14.2/8.12.9/ROSCH/DDB) with ESMTP id n2NDBZXa010692; Mon, 23 Mar 2009 14:11:35 +0100 Message-ID: <49C78A88.5010908@onevision.de> Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2009 13:12:00 -0000 From: Roland Schwingel User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.19 (Windows/20081209) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Joel Brobecker , gdb Subject: Re: Strange stack trace on Windows Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15; 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: 2009-03/txt/msg00136.txt.bz2 Hi Joel... Thanks for your reply... gdb-owner@sourceware.org wrote on 19.03.2009 15:18:06: > [...] > The idea is that, during a function call made during single-stepping, > you'll stop at the first instruction of the function. At this point, > we want to use the standard method of computing the frame cache rather > than using the alternative method of trusting the %ebp register. > This is what the check that I added was about. > > The patch that I sent was to be made on top of the first patch > that I sent long ago. Did you do that? Sure. I made my changes on top of your older patch. I studied your old/new patch over and over. I had to slightly adjust it as your new patch does not 100% match the current cvs code. If you like I send you my full i386-tdep.c (it is quite fat - so I do not attach it now) > > > In my tests both cache->pc and current_pc are ALWAYS identical. > > They should be identical when you step into a function during > your "next" operation, but other should be different. If this is not > the case, then I missed something (maybe something obvious). Would it help if I make a simple plain c example (source + executable code) which you can step thru on your own? If you have the time to do so... Roland