Increasing backtrace entries

Increasing backtrace entries

[JobHunts02]

When I run gdb on a core dump after my application crashes, my backtrace  
consists of only 1 entry (see below).  Is there a way to increase the  number of 
entries in the backtrace so I can determine how I got to this  point?  Does 
only getting 1 entry in the trace indicate something?
 
GNU gdb 6.8
Copyright (C) 2008 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
License  GPLv3+: GNU GPL version 3 or later 
<_http://gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html_ (http://gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html) >
This  is free software: you are free to change and redistribute it.
There is NO  WARRANTY, to the extent permitted by law.  Type "show copying"
and "show  warranty" for details.
This GDB was configured as "--host=i686-pc-linux-gnu  
--target=powerpc-linux"...
 
warning: exec file is newer than core file.
Cannot access memory at  address 0x6d61706c
(gdb) bt
#0  0x1003cc60 in wsrFind  (
reg_p=0x30284d9e <Address 0x30284d9e out of  bounds>, rxc=-1)
at lwc.c:4024
Cannot access memory  at address 0x30284d84
(gdb)




**************Gas prices getting you down? Search AOL Autos for 
fuel-efficient used cars.      (http://autos.aol.com/used?ncid=aolaut00050000000007)

Re: Increasing backtrace entries

[Andreas Schwab]

JobHunts02@aol.com writes:

> warning: exec file is newer than core file.
> Cannot access memory at  address 0x6d61706c
> (gdb) bt
> #0  0x1003cc60 in wsrFind  (
> reg_p=0x30284d9e <Address 0x30284d9e out of  bounds>, rxc=-1)
> at lwc.c:4024
> Cannot access memory  at address 0x30284d84
> (gdb)

Apparently the core file does not match the executable and/or debugging
info you have.  If that is the case then nothing can be done about that,
except by manually decoding the frames.

Andreas.

-- 
Andreas Schwab, SuSE Labs, schwab@suse.de
SuSE Linux Products GmbH, Maxfeldstraße 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany
PGP key fingerprint = 58CA 54C7 6D53 942B 1756  01D3 44D5 214B 8276 4ED5
"And now for something completely different."

Re: Increasing backtrace entries

[Michael Snyder]

On Thu, 2008-06-26 at 11:15 +0200, Andreas Schwab wrote:
> JobHunts02@aol.com writes:
> 
> > warning: exec file is newer than core file.
> > Cannot access memory at  address 0x6d61706c
> > (gdb) bt
> > #0  0x1003cc60 in wsrFind  (
> > reg_p=0x30284d9e <Address 0x30284d9e out of  bounds>, rxc=-1)
> > at lwc.c:4024
> > Cannot access memory  at address 0x30284d84
> > (gdb)
> 
> Apparently the core file does not match the executable and/or debugging
> info you have.  If that is the case then nothing can be done about that,
> except by manually decoding the frames.

Yes, the appearance is that either (a) you have recompiled
the executable since the corefile was generated, or (b) it's
the wrong executable, in which case finding the right one
will solve your problem.

Re: Increasing backtrace entries

[JobHunts02]

In a message dated 6/26/2008 11:27:23 AM Pacific  Daylight Time, 
msnyder@specifix.com writes:
> > > warning: exec file  is newer than core file.
> > > Cannot access memory at  address  0x6d61706c
> > > (gdb) bt
> > > #0  0x1003cc60 in  wsrFind  (
> > > reg_p=0x30284d9e <Address 0x30284d9e out  of  bounds>, rxc=-1)
> > > at lwc.c:4024
> > >  Cannot access memory  at address 0x30284d84
> > > (gdb)
>  > 
> > Apparently the core file does not match the executable and/or  debugging
> > info you have.  If that is the case then  nothing can be done about that,
> > except by manually decoding the  frames.
>
> Yes, the appearance is that either (a) you have  recompiled
> the executable since the corefile was generated, or (b)  it's
> the wrong executable, in which case finding the right one
>  will solve your problem.  


I can assure you:
 
(a) The executable was not recompiled after the corefile was generated.  and
(b) The executable is the same one that lead to the generation of the  
corefile.
 
Any other explanations?  I am running Linux 2.6.10 on PowerPC.and was  using 
gdb 6.8.  I have seen the same behavior using older versions of gdb  too.



**************Gas prices getting you down? Search AOL Autos for 
fuel-efficient used cars.      (http://autos.aol.com/used?ncid=aolaut00050000000007)

Re: Increasing backtrace entries

[Michael Snyder]

On Fri, 2008-06-27 at 02:04 -0400, JobHunts02@aol.com wrote:
> In a message dated 6/26/2008 11:27:23 AM Pacific  Daylight Time, 
> msnyder@specifix.com writes:
> > > > warning: exec file  is newer than core file.
> > > > Cannot access memory at  address  0x6d61706c
> > > > (gdb) bt
> > > > #0  0x1003cc60 in  wsrFind  (
> > > > reg_p=0x30284d9e <Address 0x30284d9e out  of  bounds>, rxc=-1)
> > > > at lwc.c:4024
> > > >  Cannot access memory  at address 0x30284d84
> > > > (gdb)
> >  > 
> > > Apparently the core file does not match the executable and/or  debugging
> > > info you have.  If that is the case then  nothing can be done about that,
> > > except by manually decoding the  frames.
> >
> > Yes, the appearance is that either (a) you have  recompiled
> > the executable since the corefile was generated, or (b)  it's
> > the wrong executable, in which case finding the right one
> >  will solve your problem.  
> 
> 
> I can assure you:
>  
> (a) The executable was not recompiled after the corefile was generated.  and
> (b) The executable is the same one that lead to the generation of the  
> corefile.
>  
> Any other explanations?  I am running Linux 2.6.10 on PowerPC.and was  using 
> gdb 6.8.  I have seen the same behavior using older versions of gdb  too.

None at all.  I was just noting this message gdb:

  warning: exec file  is newer than core file.

which suggests that the date stamp on the object 
file is more recent than the one on the corefile.

I have no other thoughts on the matter.