From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from simark.ca by simark.ca with LMTP id J7JQKjx8KGIWWwAAWB0awg (envelope-from ) for ; Wed, 09 Mar 2022 05:06:52 -0500 Received: by simark.ca (Postfix, from userid 112) id 927F41F3CA; Wed, 9 Mar 2022 05:06:52 -0500 (EST) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on simark.ca X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.0 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RDNS_DYNAMIC,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from sourceware.org (ip-8-43-85-97.sourceware.org [8.43.85.97]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by simark.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E22E61EA69 for ; Wed, 9 Mar 2022 05:06:51 -0500 (EST) Received: from server2.sourceware.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1DE5A3857C44 for ; Wed, 9 Mar 2022 10:06:51 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 1DE5A3857C44 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sourceware.org; s=default; t=1646820411; bh=BbdUKP6NTQORj3bn0C1AfDyDBaiFAf0W+jmRXWiqhEg=; h=To:Subject:References:Date:In-Reply-To:List-Id:List-Unsubscribe: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help:List-Subscribe:From:Reply-To:Cc: From; b=EryRlI0CrWaEAR+LtaAC+ul4TO13OhHLnZ8oJ8Wfb8VbjXMvGtbFdRkCMjx3eZlV5 YBb32uKlb7gT1FyT1xY6szpGyDVNLaeA1oWDFXvCRG6E7iGAge3BDhOog9/UQAVpDR 7gos1/phfHLRCU9JO2ERUYaNwen8RTGhW/phrKuU= Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [170.10.133.124]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 818DD3858D28 for ; Wed, 9 Mar 2022 10:06:25 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org 818DD3858D28 Received: from mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (mimecast-mx01.redhat.com [209.132.183.4]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-220-GKNufuHHOz6trPuzEaTkbg-1; Wed, 09 Mar 2022 05:06:24 -0500 X-MC-Unique: GKNufuHHOz6trPuzEaTkbg-1 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx07.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.22]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C2DA71006AA8; Wed, 9 Mar 2022 10:06:22 +0000 (UTC) Received: from oldenburg.str.redhat.com (unknown [10.39.192.88]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 09D101059144; Wed, 9 Mar 2022 10:06:20 +0000 (UTC) To: Tom Tromey Subject: Re: How to backtrace an separate stack? References: <87sfrtakce.fsf@oldenburg.str.redhat.com> <87fsnt1xhg.fsf@tromey.com> Date: Wed, 09 Mar 2022 11:06:19 +0100 In-Reply-To: <87fsnt1xhg.fsf@tromey.com> (Tom Tromey's message of "Mon, 07 Mar 2022 10:30:35 -0700") Message-ID: <87ilsn784k.fsf@oldenburg.str.redhat.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.2 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.84 on 10.5.11.22 X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain X-BeenThere: gdb@sourceware.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Gdb mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , From: Florian Weimer via Gdb Reply-To: Florian Weimer Cc: Stefan Hajnoczi via Gdb , pedro@palves.net, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Stefan Hajnoczi , "Dr. David Alan Gilbert" Errors-To: gdb-bounces+public-inbox=simark.ca@sourceware.org Sender: "Gdb" * Tom Tromey: > Florian> I'm a bit surprised by this. Conceptually, why would GDB need to know > Florian> about stack boundaries? Is there some heuristic to detect broken > Florian> frames? > > Yes, the infamous "previous frame inner to this frame" error message. I > think this is primarily intended to detect stack trashing, but maybe it > also serves to work around bad debuginfo or bugs in the unwinders. > > This error was disabled for cases where the GCC split stack feature is > used. There's been requests to disable it in other cases as well, I > think. Is there a user-level command to disable the check manually? Thanks, Florian