From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-return-40202-listarch-gdb=sources.redhat.com@sourceware.org>
Received: (qmail 17881 invoked by alias); 11 Nov 2011 16:31:53 -0000
Received: (qmail 17831 invoked by uid 22791); 11 Nov 2011 16:31:48 -0000
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-3.9 required=5.0	tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,RP_MATCHES_RCVD
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from mail-gy0-f169.google.com (HELO mail-gy0-f169.google.com) (209.85.160.169)    by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Fri, 11 Nov 2011 16:31:32 +0000
Received: by gyg10 with SMTP id 10so3664826gyg.0        for <gdb@sourceware.org>; Fri, 11 Nov 2011 08:31:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.68.74.34 with SMTP id q2mr9536760pbv.13.1321029091207;        Fri, 11 Nov 2011 08:31:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.68.74.34 with SMTP id q2mr9536735pbv.13.1321029091075;        Fri, 11 Nov 2011 08:31:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: from coign.google.com ([2620:0:1000:147c:224:d7ff:fe8f:f634])        by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id t5sm31175550pbb.13.2011.11.11.08.31.30        (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER);        Fri, 11 Nov 2011 08:31:30 -0800 (PST)
From: Ian Lance Taylor <iant@google.com>
To: naveen yadav <yad.naveen@gmail.com>
Cc: gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org,  gdb@sourceware.org
Subject: Re: Issue with GDB 7.0 on MIPS(gcc 4.4.1)
References: <CAJ8eaTyb_F41Te0JByEE9CRJhXp3qZ8QR-NPFXWgJ_tQmhgq4w@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2011 16:31:00 -0000
In-Reply-To: <CAJ8eaTyb_F41Te0JByEE9CRJhXp3qZ8QR-NPFXWgJ_tQmhgq4w@mail.gmail.com>	(naveen yadav's message of "Fri, 11 Nov 2011 13:17:54 +0530")
Message-ID: <mcrpqgyhb8e.fsf@dhcp-172-18-216-180.mtv.corp.google.com>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.1 (gnu/linux)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
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: 2011-11/txt/msg00080.txt.bz2

naveen yadav <yad.naveen@gmail.com> writes:

> I am running one application and it generate core dump. When I run bt .
> (gdb) bt
> #0  wepp (gn=0x5d5f58, ef=0x5c43000, Bytes=429496729, gcOs=0x5c3408f)
> #1  CompactCollect (gn=0x5d5f58, ef=0x5c43000, Bytes=429496729, gcOs=0x5c3408f)
> ...
>
> In above case
> we got crash in wepp().
> CompactCollect () is main function and wepp() is another function
> which got called from CompactCollect ().
>
> When I check the assembly wepp() become inline.
> So i got bit surprise when i check that function parameter;s for both
> wepp() and CompactCollect () are same.
>
> So is it correct behaviour ? that calling and calle have same parameter

Without any information about the source code, I don't see how we can
tell whether having the same parameters is correct behaviour or not.

That said, it is certainly possible that the arguments of the inlined
function are not being displayed correctly.  Mainline gcc has gotten
quite a bit better about debug info for inlined functions and in general
for avoiding incorrect display of variables in optimized code.

Ian