Mail Archives: cygwin/2005/06/30/12:46:10
----Original Message----
>From: Christopher Faylor
>Sent: 30 June 2005 15:58
> On Thu, Jun 30, 2005 at 03:37:25PM +0100, Dave Korn wrote:
>> I think I remember noticing that backtracing across sigfe doesn't always
>> work too well. Then again, there could be a problem with the debug info:
>
> "doesn't always" == "never".
>
>>> #3 0x00435d27 in fhandler_pipe::get_guard ()
>>
>> makes no sense. But I would imagine the peculiarity is down to sigfe;
>> it does something unexpected to the stack frame, that the debug info
>> doesn't reflect.
>
> No, it's due to the fact that 0x00435d27 is an address in the
> application and the application has no debugging symbols.
That doesn't explain how it managed to think that 0x0040xxxx was somewhere
in the middle of the dll. I wouldn't have been surprised if the dll was
loaded *lower* in memory than the executable and that was the last symbol at
the highest address in the dll, but I am surprised that it could get
confused by symbols that point to much higher addresses.
>>> In case you haven't noticed, I'm running a snapshot, which, IIUC, *is*
>>> a debug build. And that doesn't help much, as you can see.
>>
>> Debug yes; unoptimised, I think not, although we'd need cgf or cv to
>> confirm how the snapshot process works.
>
> The snapshots are unstripped. Otherwise, it is a normal build.
Right, so -O2 then, cheers for clearing that up.
cheers,
DaveK
--
Can't think of a witty .sigline today....
--
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
- Raw text -