Mail Archives: cygwin/2005/06/30/12:58:48
On Thu, Jun 30, 2005 at 05:45:52PM +0100, Dave Korn wrote:
>----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.
Nor does the existence of sigfe in a stack chain cause gdb to change the way
an address is turned into a symbol.
fhandler_pipe::get_guard is a strange symbol that gdb is incorrectly
choosing for the name of a function, possibly because it has the sign
bit set and there's some inappropriate signed comparison somewhere in gdb's
symbol handling code.
cgf
--
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 -