From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-return-30774-listarch-gdb=sources.redhat.com@sourceware.org>
Received: (qmail 12932 invoked by alias); 19 Jan 2008 04:26:41 -0000
Received: (qmail 12920 invoked by uid 22791); 19 Jan 2008 04:26:40 -0000
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from mu-out-0910.google.com (HELO mu-out-0910.google.com) (209.85.134.184)     by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Sat, 19 Jan 2008 04:26:22 +0000
Received: by mu-out-0910.google.com with SMTP id i10so1044935mue.3         for <gdb@sourceware.org>; Fri, 18 Jan 2008 20:26:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.78.138.14 with SMTP id l14mr5988570hud.23.1200716777773;         Fri, 18 Jan 2008 20:26:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.78.81.7 with HTTP; Fri, 18 Jan 2008 20:26:17 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <e7dfeff00801182026h52b7fe6eo82a28c0e745db1b@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2008 04:26:00 -0000
From: "Siva Velusamy" <siva.velusamy@gmail.com>
To: gdb@sourceware.org
Subject: Re: info on "value being assigned to is no longer active" error
In-Reply-To: <20080119042116.GA28626@caradoc.them.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <e7dfeff00801182011n27015c9anfb444e45379971db@mail.gmail.com> 	 <20080119042116.GA28626@caradoc.them.org>
X-IsSubscribed: yes
Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gdb.sourceware.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gdb-subscribe@sourceware.org>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb/>
List-Post: <mailto:gdb@sourceware.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-help@sourceware.org>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: gdb-owner@sourceware.org
X-SW-Source: 2008-01/txt/msg00187.txt.bz2

On Jan 18, 2008 8:21 PM, Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org> wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 18, 2008 at 08:11:34PM -0800, Siva Velusamy wrote:
> > If my (admittedly cursory) examination of the code in valops.c is
> > correct, it appears as if gdb is looking for the frame to make sure
> > that it updates the value of the register if it has been stored in the
> > stack. Is that correct?
>
> Roughly.  All registers in GDB belong to a frame.  Either the current
> frame or a saved stack frame.  GDB has found the current frame, but
> confuses its ID with an invalid frame marker.
>

Thanks. Should gdb be able to handle this correctly, or is this a
situation where it is tough to define the correct course of action?

If gdb should handle this, what sort of change would be appropriate in
the target specific code?

Siva