From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 31781 invoked by alias); 9 Feb 2017 04:51:21 -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 31767 invoked by uid 89); 9 Feb 2017 04:51:19 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=1.7 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_50,FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM,SPF_PASS autolearn=no version=3.3.2 spammy=dje.gcc@gmail.com, djegccgmailcom, U*dje.gcc, sk:dje.gcc 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 04:51:17 +0000 Received: by mail-yw0-f194.google.com with SMTP id l16so13523552ywb.2 for ; Wed, 08 Feb 2017 20:51:17 -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=SBF0xvceXaEIUFi5Ueh8jkZdqQGjL3rfX6Kb4G1V9YE=; b=tcxvjoxEWTMP1gHhe4wqwAPGm6vzERZ/LEaNrkVXVxr6fpHNVUW0yEb52JG/xFAmzF cq1AcdoMi5apH0ladvmkBVatl5jQzI6Ch698YMNv++nD2mcBfBjrvi1IAZiTQgJzUkYk l6em7o24Y68CWXnH/CFxe2RS6Bg7reXqEBj+AWd5yDepxSBXAfK64yJbdkx5l0oI4hFF Cju+I/kehTEnk4LHAglEBdzzfiHSJRhDfjalxB7EGviXsZuPloeTzgQN70ZWCKiK9RP8 lUsJGTKYcre14ImuLm9cmeG0+FgSUopVXJ3hXNgtYpAd3J3/XF1MOFNSVJ9O2DQbXl5X eMKw== X-Gm-Message-State: AMke39mCShXgZ0ZKz0jFgVLlfyz0sEpn0X6GOqNf/swinLXJRFCRdiFs3zu4q8OqAtvuyV09issSZHaS3LPnOQ== X-Received: by 10.13.234.205 with SMTP id t196mr835619ywe.108.1486615875988; Wed, 08 Feb 2017 20:51:15 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.37.164.199 with HTTP; Wed, 8 Feb 2017 20:51:15 -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 04:51:00 -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/msg00017.txt.bz2 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