From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 18318 invoked by alias); 5 Nov 2009 02:26:44 -0000 Received: (qmail 18309 invoked by uid 22791); 5 Nov 2009 02:26:43 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.7 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SARE_MSGID_LONG40,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail-px0-f181.google.com (HELO mail-px0-f181.google.com) (209.85.216.181) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Thu, 05 Nov 2009 02:26:39 +0000 Received: by pxi11 with SMTP id 11so5215626pxi.26 for ; Wed, 04 Nov 2009 18:26:38 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.142.59.11 with SMTP id h11mr231683wfa.60.1257387998122; Wed, 04 Nov 2009 18:26:38 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <4AEC74B8.9090908@vmware.com> <4AF1C806.2010802@vmware.com> From: Hui Zhu Date: Thu, 05 Nov 2009 02:26:00 -0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: About the gdb prec save/restore reverse exec behavior error (gcore error) To: Michael Snyder Cc: "gdb@sourceware.org" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-IsSubscribed: yes 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 X-SW-Source: 2009-11/txt/msg00046.txt.bz2 Sorry I make a mistake, please ignore prev mail. The right mail is: Faint, I found that issue just can reproduce in amd64 ubuntu 9.0.4 and i386 ubuntu 9.0.4. It's gcc is 4.3.3. glibc is 2.9. In amd64 gcc 4.1.2 glibc 2.5 and i386 gcc 4.2.4 glibc 2.7, it cannot be reproduced. I think we need do more work on it and need more people's help. Thanks, Hui On Thu, Nov 5, 2009 at 10:24, Hui Zhu wrote: > Faint, I found that issue just cannot reproduce in amd64 ubuntu 9.0.4 > and i386 ubuntu 9.0.4. > > It's gcc is 4.3.3. =A0glibc is 2.9. > > In amd64 gcc 4.1.2 glibc 2.5 and i386 gcc 4.2.4 glibc 2.7, it cannot > be reproduced. > > I think we need do more work on it and need more people's help. > > Thanks, > Hui > > On Thu, Nov 5, 2009 at 02:29, Michael Snyder wrote: >> Hui Zhu wrote: >>> >>> Hi Michael, >>> >>> I make a patch to fix it. =A0I try in i386-ubuntu. =A0It is OK now. >>> Please help me review it. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Hui >>> >>> 2009-11-04 =A0Hui Zhu =A0 >>> >>> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0* gcore.c (gcore_copy_callback): Remove bfd_get_section_= flags >>> check. >>> >>> --- >>> =A0gcore.c | =A0 =A04 ---- >>> =A01 file changed, 4 deletions(-) >>> >>> --- a/gcore.c >>> +++ b/gcore.c >>> @@ -510,10 +510,6 @@ gcore_copy_callback (bfd *obfd, asection >>> =A0 struct cleanup *old_chain =3D NULL; >>> =A0 void *memhunk; >>> >>> - =A0/* Read-only sections are marked; we don't have to copy their cont= ents. >>> =A0*/ >>> - =A0if ((bfd_get_section_flags (obfd, osec) & SEC_LOAD) =3D=3D 0) >>> - =A0 =A0return; >>> - >>> =A0 /* Only interested in "load" sections. =A0*/ >>> =A0 if (strncmp ("load", bfd_section_name (obfd, osec), 4) !=3D 0) >>> =A0 =A0 return; >>> >> >> No, this is not acceptable. =A0We can't save ALL of the loadable >> sections, it will make the gcore file much bigger than necessary. >> Most loadable sections are code, and do not need to be saved. >> >> We will need to choose explicitly just the loadable sections >> that we need to save. >> >> >