RE: Error running remote gdb

["Bizhan Gholikhamseh \(bgholikh\)" <bgholikh@cisco.com>]

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Daniel Jacobowitz [mailto:drow@false.org] 
Sent: Thursday, August 31, 2006 4:29 PM
To: Michael Snyder
Cc: Bizhan Gholikhamseh (bgholikh); gdb@sourceware.org
Subject: Re: Error running remote gdb

On Thu, Aug 31, 2006 at 03:47:28PM -0700, Michael Snyder wrote:
> > Sending packet: $vCont?#49...Ack
> > Packet received: vCont;c;C;s;S
> > Packet vCont (verbose-resume) is supported Sending packet: 
> > $vCont;c#a8...Ack Packet received: T0501:7ffff850;40:3000ce98;
> 
> gdb asks the target to continue.  Target continues, then informs gdb 
> "I hit a breakpoint at 0x3000ce98".
> 
> This is the first breakpoint that gdb set, above.
> I'm pretty sure now that it's the thread event breakpoint.

More likely it's the shared library event breakpoint; we don't set the
thread breakpoints until after we've got a load event for libpthread.

> > Packet received: T0501:7ffffd30;40:10000560;thread:6098;
> > [Switching to thread 24728]

> > Sending packet: $m3000ce98,4#c9...Ack Packet received: 9421fff0 
> > Sending packet: $M3000ce98,4:7d821008#b1...Ack Packet received: OK 
> > Sending packet: $m10000560,4#59...Ack Packet received: 48000181 
> > Sending packet: $M10000560,4:7d821008#41...Ack Packet received: OK 
> > Sending packet: $vCont;s:6098;c#67...Ack
> 
> Finally, gdb restores the breakpoints and tells the target to 
> continue.
> 
> > Packet received: T0501:7ffffd30;40:10000560;thread:6098;
> 
> Whereupon we immediately hit the breakpoint at main.
> This is where we went wrong.  This shouldn't have happened.

>Actually, this looks fine.  But we're at 0x10000560; why are we
reinserting the breakpoint _at this address_ and >>then continuing?
>Normally you leave the breakpoint out to step over it.

I> can't think what could cause that.

>> This is where I have to admit that I don't know the exact semantics
of 
>> the vCont message.  Over to you, Daniel?

>That's a "step only thread 6098, continue all other threads"
>packet, in other words, it corresponds to a single step other than over
a breakpoint.  If we're stepping over a >
breakpoint we'd have not had the trailing ;c.


Sorry I am a little confused here, so you are implying everything is
fine, however I am not able to step or next?
Many thanks in advance,
Bizhan
--
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery