This is the mail archive of the gdb@sources.redhat.com mailing list for the GDB project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: GDB 6.3 assumes that DW_AT_frame_base exists

From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow at false dot org>
To: "H. J. Lu" <hjl at lucon dot org>
Cc: gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org, GDB <gdb at sources dot redhat dot com>
Date: Thu, 30 Dec 2004 15:07:20 -0500
Subject: Re: GDB 6.3 assumes that DW_AT_frame_base exists
References: <20041222011627.GA15293@lucon.org> <41C9577D.3010509@redhat.com> <20041222182449.GA29407@lucon.org> <20041223034318.GA19580@nevyn.them.org> <20041230192424.GA16440@lucon.org> <20041230193618.GA16661@lucon.org> <20041230195642.GA16984@lucon.org>

On Thu, Dec 30, 2004 at 11:56:42AM -0800, H. J. Lu wrote:
> DW_AT_frame_base may be needed for location lists of local variables.
> But in case of tls_symbolic_operand, there is no local variable.
> Location lists are used for function parameters.

Then why is GDB calling get_frame_base?  It is only called for
DW_OP_fbreg.  If we don't have a frame base, we don't know what
DW_OP_fbreg refers to.

GDB should issue an error instead of crashing, but that's as far as we
can go.

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz

Follow-Ups:
- Gdb generates location list without DW_AT_frame_base
  - From: H. J. Lu

References:
- Is this a gcc, gdb or readelf bug?
  - From: H. J. Lu
- Re: Is this a gcc, gdb or readelf bug?
  - From: Nick Clifton
- Re: Is this a gcc, gdb or readelf bug?
  - From: H. J. Lu
- Re: Is this a gcc, gdb or readelf bug?
  - From: Daniel Jacobowitz
- GDB 6.3 assumes that DW_AT_frame_base exists
  - From: H. J. Lu
- Re: GDB 6.3 assumes that DW_AT_frame_base exists
  - From: H. J. Lu
- Re: GDB 6.3 assumes that DW_AT_frame_base exists
  - From: H. J. Lu

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]