This is the mail archive of the
gdb@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: Stepping over longjmp presumably broken for glibc
- From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow at false dot org>
- To: Jim Blandy <jimb at red-bean dot com>
- Cc: Mark Kettenis <mark dot kettenis at xs4all dot nl>, gdb at sourceware dot org
- Date: Fri, 6 Jan 2006 14:43:47 -0500
- Subject: Re: Stepping over longjmp presumably broken for glibc
- References: <uek43iu5a.fsf@gnu.org> <20051224162302.GA11929@nevyn.them.org> <uirtezc3i.fsf@gnu.org> <8f2776cb0512252006i4b28abe7if0fd67dd8cee6f10@mail.gmail.com> <ur7808mft.fsf@gnu.org> <8f2776cb0512262024n39deb5e9q64ab62c48652e336@mail.gmail.com> <20051230023830.GA26004@nevyn.them.org> <200512300932.jBU9WBn6015669@elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl> <20051230162507.GA5006@nevyn.them.org> <8f2776cb0601012125y346a1807w7dc5e5997741b4c4@mail.gmail.com>
On Sun, Jan 01, 2006 at 09:25:14PM -0800, Jim Blandy wrote:
> On 12/30/05, Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org> wrote:
> > That's not what I meant - I meant between a longjmp with "normal"
> > unwind information, or with Jim's proposed "magic" unwind information
> > that returned to the setjmp target. There's got to be at least one of
> > the former out there somewhere...
>
> Why do you need to? If I'm thinking this through right, once longjmp
> is annotated this way, GDB has no further work to do. The bug is
> "fixed", just not in GDB.
I don't know about you, but I'd be pretty disturbed if "break longjmp;
continue; backtrace; up; list" showed me a setjmp instead of a longjmp.
On the other hand, I see that the glibc x86_64 longjmp implementation
already has CFI which backtraces through the jmp_buf. Yuck.
--
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery