From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 13143 invoked by alias); 7 Sep 2004 14:41:42 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 13128 invoked from network); 7 Sep 2004 14:41:40 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO NUTMEG.CAM.ARTIMI.COM) (217.40.111.177) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 7 Sep 2004 14:41:40 -0000 Received: from mace ([192.168.1.25]) by NUTMEG.CAM.ARTIMI.COM with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.0); Tue, 7 Sep 2004 15:39:13 +0100 From: "Dave Korn" To: "'Craig Jeffree'" Cc: "'Fabian Cenedese'" , Subject: RE: gdb 6.1.1 (PPC) crash (long) AND gdb crash in cp_print_class_method Date: Tue, 07 Sep 2004 14:41:00 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In-Reply-To: <1094165275.32298.130.camel@cosmo.preston.net> Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 07 Sep 2004 14:39:13.0250 (UTC) FILETIME=[719AA420:01C494E8] X-SW-Source: 2004-09/txt/msg00052.txt.bz2 > -----Original Message----- > From: Craig Jeffree > Sent: 02 September 2004 23:48 > To: Dave Korn > Cc: 'Fabian Cenedese'; gdb > Subject: RE: gdb 6.1.1 (PPC) crash (long) AND gdb crash in > cp_print_class_method > > On Fri, 2004-09-03 at 00:05, Dave Korn wrote: > > Or perhaps as a consequence of the C++ ABI changes > between gcc 2.9x and > > gcc 3.x, or recent improvements and upgrading of dwarf handling. > > > > Craig, is your code also compiled using an old gcc 2.95 > as well, by any > > chance? > > > > Yes. 2.95.3 infact. > > Cheers, > Craig. OK, we have our suspect then: some kind of backward incompatibility between gdb-6.x (which is sync'ed with gcc-3.x) and the objects compiled by gcc-2.x, and it is most likely to be caused by either a change in the name-mangling relating to the new C++ ABI in series 3 gcc, or a change in the debug info format. I'm not too familiar with the internals here, so my first recommendation to both of you would be to revert to a 5.x gdb, which was the contemporary version to 2.95, and as Fabian has already observed seems to handle the object files in question without any problem. cheers, DaveK -- Can't think of a witty .sigline today....