From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 4158 invoked by alias); 21 Dec 2005 20:21:46 -0000 Received: (qmail 4149 invoked by uid 22791); 21 Dec 2005 20:21:45 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from zproxy.gmail.com (HELO zproxy.gmail.com) (64.233.162.195) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Wed, 21 Dec 2005 20:21:44 +0000 Received: by zproxy.gmail.com with SMTP id j2so235436nzf for ; Wed, 21 Dec 2005 12:21:41 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.65.35.3 with SMTP id n3mr806494qbj; Wed, 21 Dec 2005 12:21:41 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.64.253.1 with HTTP; Wed, 21 Dec 2005 12:21:41 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <7f45d9390512211221i72d03924j@mail.gmail.com> Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2005 20:21:00 -0000 From: Shaun Jackman Reply-To: Shaun Jackman To: gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: arm-elf-gdb crash in get_frame_pc In-Reply-To: <20051221181759.GA14253@nevyn.them.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline References: <7f45d9390512210923t1b448ff6o@mail.gmail.com> <7f45d9390512210931h17ca164v@mail.gmail.com> <20051221181759.GA14253@nevyn.them.org> X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2005-12/txt/msg00174.txt.bz2 2005/12/21, Daniel Jacobowitz : > On Wed, Dec 21, 2005 at 10:31:32AM -0700, Shaun Jackman wrote: > > 2005/12/21, Shaun Jackman : > > > I was single stepping through an arm-elf program when this crash occu= rred. > > > > > > Cheers, > > > Shaun > > > > This crash also occurs with gdb 6.4.50.20051221-cvs. > > Since you can obviously reproduce it, how about creating a testcase > - preferably one suitable for the testsuite, but at least one for > anyone to debug it? > > Though it's fairly apparent what must have gone wrong. I am uncertain what portion of triggering this crash depends on the debugger I'm using (a BDI2000 by Abatron) or the target hardware (a custom ARM7 based board). Perhaps this bug could be triggered using the ARM simulator. I think I'd have a better chance of fixing the bug itself than writing a test case. Cheers, Shaun