This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [patch/hppa/rfa] unwind fix for functions with no debug info
- From: Randolph Chung <randolph at tausq dot org>
- To: Andrew Cagney <cagney at gnu dot org>
- Cc: gdb-patches at sources dot redhat dot com
- Date: Wed, 3 Nov 2004 14:37:11 -0800
- Subject: Re: [patch/hppa/rfa] unwind fix for functions with no debug info
- References: <20041103174449.GD4249@tausq.org> <41895A80.1090500@gnu.org>
- Reply-to: Randolph Chung <randolph at tausq dot org>
> Ok for 6.3 and mainline with a comment/change log tweak:
>
> The convention is for the ChangeLog to record what was changed while the
> code records why it was changed.
will do. thanks.
I'm still looking at another aspect of this problem:
For example, in this backtrace:
(gdb) bt
#0 0x406510a8 in Tcl_Finalize () from /usr/lib/libtcl8.4.so.0
#1 0x40650de0 in Tcl_Exit () from /usr/lib/libtcl8.4.so.0
#2 0x40131224 in exp_new_i_simple () from /usr/lib/libexpect5.42.so.1
#3 0x406273b8 in TclInvokeStringCommand () from /usr/lib/libtcl8.4.so.0
#4 0x40628730 in TclEvalObjvInternal () from /usr/lib/libtcl8.4.so.0
#5 0x406293e8 in Tcl_EvalEx () from /usr/lib/libtcl8.4.so.0
#6 0x406297bc in Tcl_Eval () from /usr/lib/libtcl8.4.so.0
#7 0x00010bc0 in main ()
at frame #2, 0x40131224 is not actually in exp_new_i_simple, but in
another function with no recorded name. this backtrace is confusing;
possibly we should show "#2 0x40131224 in ??? from ..." instead?
thoughts?
randolph
--
Randolph Chung
Debian GNU/Linux Developer, hppa/ia64 ports
http://www.tausq.org/