From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 10967 invoked by alias); 9 Feb 2017 12:15:40 -0000 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 Received: (qmail 10816 invoked by uid 89); 9 Feb 2017 12:15:18 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=2.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_50,FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT,FREEMAIL_FROM,KAM_ASCII_DIVIDERS,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM,SPF_PASS autolearn=no version=3.3.2 spammy=U*dje.gcc, djegccgmailcom, sk:djegcc, dje.gcc@gmail.com X-HELO: mail-yw0-f194.google.com Received: from mail-yw0-f194.google.com (HELO mail-yw0-f194.google.com) (209.85.161.194) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Thu, 09 Feb 2017 12:15:16 +0000 Received: by mail-yw0-f194.google.com with SMTP id u68so132751ywg.0 for ; Thu, 09 Feb 2017 04:15:06 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=15xFCBDCpNDzBbUARugyMnzWpP7ko5DXMoVSHFIsL+M=; b=bVcEbAlE7R7R5Ye32j72S2pie5cggaR4bRg4uuyCL6NcUHoi75PhXqJHfSZ5LwRrY3 TeKKYryQch4/N/9Fl6HI/Stk08kHPcsLViJ8k8nm2Rtl5a/ukDPVU/ouaeza4fa1Hu1H LOOMEWAOGUBFcuiJUKsSGqe1/2em6z31UcN60m/pxp8QvacRTlTRWhrHNiG3gy06FO6/ VVwgrMZIgOoskCiUIFAe0vjlV2fPt3EDIFXAOqBuT1MOBOOQ/ugkbXS6WD138JF8a6yO lhCDclFklHlMwUkjY3JmDfLqYEy0PId2xJQHOoXcLQjx1AEkfJoqomFcn01qGjBE3eHg hUGA== X-Gm-Message-State: AMke39l/RRzboFypU8RnAc+wH5V2TNCk7OeXVH1P0IObaZt4sM+bbiJPWHJrp4P7zrflCNNtSsQGKoh/CQR/pw== X-Received: by 10.13.234.205 with SMTP id t196mr1848748ywe.108.1486642505445; Thu, 09 Feb 2017 04:15:05 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.37.164.199 with HTTP; Thu, 9 Feb 2017 04:15:05 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <21a21388-b1d9-816c-377e-d4e084cc399e@redhat.com> <331a72d9-050c-7cd7-adc2-78e5f1ed6f85@redhat.com> <57147db4-83c3-2a8f-0c74-0efc6a94e9f5@redhat.com> From: Nitish Kumar Mishra Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2017 12:15:00 -0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Issue with Latest GDB on AIX with GCC-6.12 To: David Edelsohn Cc: Pedro Alves , "gdb@sourceware.org" , Yao Qi Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2017-02/txt/msg00019.txt.bz2 Hi all, While sending the previous mail the statements got broken. I am not sure if it is understandable. So, trying again :) 1. GDB with GCC-4.8.5, 32 bit mode, with or without static options : NOT WORKING. 2. GDB with GCC-4.8.5, 64 bit mode, with or without static options : WORKING FINE 3. GDB with GCC-6.1, 64 bit mode, with static options : NOT WORKING 4. GDB with GCC-6.1, 64 bit mode, without static options : COMPILATION ERROR. P.S.: Static options means: -static-libstdc++ -static-libgcc ---------------- Thanks, Nitish On Thu, Feb 9, 2017 at 5:35 PM, Nitish Kumar Mishra wrote: > Hi All ! > Here is my findings about GCC- 4.8.5 and 6.1: > > > GCC-4.8.5 : 32 bit :::: (a) static linking to libstdc++ > -----------------> [process getting terminated (not working)] > (b) dynamic linking > ------------------------------> [process getting terminated (not > working)] > 64 bit :::: (a) static linking to libstdc++ > -----------------> [working fine] > (b) dynamic linking > -------------------------------> [working fine] > > GCC-6.1: 64 bit :::: (a) static linking to libstdc++ > ---------------------> [process getting terminated (not working)] > (b) dynamic linking > ----------------------------------> [Unable to compile (compilation > error)] > > > Above, static linking meant WITH option -static-libstdc++ > -static-libgcc and dynamic meant WITHOUT those options. > > -------------------------------------------- > > Thanks, > Nitish > > > On Thu, Feb 9, 2017 at 10:21 AM, Nitish Kumar Mishra > wrote: >> Hi David ! >> >>>>GDB is linked with static libstdc++ and libgcc. >>>>-static-libstdc++ -static-libgcc >>>>Is your small test using those options? >> >> Yes, I used those static options. I am using readline library in my >> test program and compiling it with gcc-6.1 >> like this: >> g++ -g test.c -o test -static-libstdc++ -static-libgcc >> -I/opt/freeware/include -lreadline >> and the binary is working fine means I am able to catch the exceptions. >> >>>>Can you try linking GDB and testing GDB *without* those options? >> ----Today I will be working on this--- >> >> Thanks, >> Nitish >> >> >> On Wed, Feb 8, 2017 at 7:02 PM, David Edelsohn wrote: >>> On Wed, Feb 8, 2017 at 7:06 AM, Pedro Alves wrote: >>>> On 02/08/2017 06:16 AM, Nitish Kumar Mishra wrote: >>>> >>>>> I tried adding try/catch block earlier in throw_it and >>>>> throw_exception_cxx functions >>>>> but got no significant results. >>>>> I had tried adding try catch block in these functions: >>>>> kill_command >>>>> command_handler >>>>> command_line_handler >>>>> execute_command >>>>> throw_it >>>>> throw_exception_cxx, >>>>> but no progress. Output is exactly same as we got earlier (Other than >>>>> extra frames for new >>>>> try catch functions). None of the print statements in catch blocks for >>>>> above functions worked. >>>> >>>> Eh, it sounds like _no_ exception catching works then? I just >>>> confirmed now that at least on GNU/Linux, GDB does not throw any >>>> exception internally during startup. This backtrace in question may >>>> well not be special at all, and may be that _all_ exception catching >>>> is broken. I'd try experimenting with simple things like: >>>> >>>> try >>>> { >>>> throw 1; >>>> } >>>> catch (...) >>>> { >>>> printf (....); >>>> } >>>> >>>> right at the start of gdb's main(). Not in a separately >>>> compiled test program, but really inside gdb, to avoid >>>> differences in how gdb vs the test program is built. >>>> >>>> It could also be that this is only triggered due to >>>> GDB's binary size, hence not triggered in a small program -- I >>>> recall that there was some trouble with the size of some sessions >>>> and the linker in the AIX 7.1 box couldn't link gdb, or something >>>> like that? Maybe that's not fully/correctly sorted out. >>> >>> Nitish, >>> >>> GDB is linked with static libstdc++ and libgcc. >>> >>> -static-libstdc++ -static-libgcc >>> >>> Is your small test using those options? >>> >>> Can you try linking GDB and testing GDB *without* those options? >>> >>> Thanks, David