Re: Stepping over longjmp presumably broken for glibc

Daniel Jacobowitz
2006-01-06T19:43:54Z

On Sun, Jan 01, 2006 at 09:25:14PM -0800, Jim Blandy wrote:
> On 12/30/05, Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org> wrote:
> > That's not what I meant - I meant between a longjmp with "normal"
> > unwind information, or with Jim's proposed "magic" unwind information
> > that returned to the setjmp target. There's got to be at least one of
> > the former out there somewhere...
>
> Why do you need to? If I'm thinking this through right, once longjmp
> is annotated this way, GDB has no further work to do. The bug is
> "fixed", just not in GDB.

I don't know about you, but I'd be pretty disturbed if "break longjmp;
continue; backtrace; up; list" showed me a setjmp instead of a longjmp.

On the other hand, I see that the glibc x86_64 longjmp implementation
already has CFI which backtraces through the jmp_buf. Yuck.

--
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery