This is the mail archive of the
gdb@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: gdb-6.5 produces infinite backtrace on ARM
- From: Michael Snyder <Michael dot Snyder at palmsource dot com>
- To: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow at false dot org>
- Cc: "Zarges, Olav" <Olav dot Zarges at imc-berlin dot de>, "gdb at sourceware dot org" <gdb at sourceware dot org>, msnyder at sonic dot net
- Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2006 18:39:53 -0700
- Subject: Re: gdb-6.5 produces infinite backtrace on ARM
- References: <44E181DE.7040905@imc-berlin.de> <20060815124053.GA18496@nevyn.them.org> <20060819052434.GA15612@nevyn.them.org>
On Sat, 2006-08-19 at 01:24 -0400, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 15, 2006 at 08:40:54AM -0400, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> > Normally you should get an ugly end of the backtrace, not an infinite
> > one. If you'd like, I can take a look at what's gone wrong. I would
> > need enough to reproduce the problem - which probably means a tarball
> > including the source, compiled executable, and shared libraries which
> > it uses, since this may be specific to something about your build
> > environment. If you want to do that, let me know; it's too big to post
> > to the list.
>
> Thanks a lot for the test case. The underlying cause was that
> pthread_start_thread is marked noreturn; GCC seems to have omitted
> the LR register save in this case. I thought it wouldn't do that,
> but in any case, we should cope.
>
> I know have a fairly general patch set for this problem, which
> produces:
>
> (gdb) bt
> ...
> #4 0xxxxxxxx in pthread_start_thread () from /lib/libpthread.so.0
> Backtrace stopped: frame did not save the PC
> (gdb)
>
> This isn't ideal - we could detect the pthread_start_thread function
> name and stop automatically, which might be a wise addition - but it's
> better than going off into the woods.
>
> There's about 250 lines of changes involved, to one of the more
> complicated parts of GDB, so I will need to go over the patches again
> and post them separately. But I'll try to make sure this is fixed
> soon.
Daniel, did you ever get around to posting your patch?
I have now run into this self-same problem myself, and
would be glad to work with you on getting it handled.
Rather not duplicate effort, though...
Thanks,
Michael