X-Recipient: archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Message-ID: <47FC0632.E322A565@dessent.net> Date: Tue, 08 Apr 2008 16:56:34 -0700 From: Brian Dessent X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Subject: Re: Question on gdb and ?? And also Frame did not save PC message References: <47FBE273 DOT F390E790 AT dessent DOT net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes Reply-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Brian Keener wrote: > As to the second part of my question - is there a way to determine what > sources/debug info I still need to get around the ?? Or is that just a > matter of tracing from the sources I can see to find what it is bing > called next? Most of those frames with ?? are totally bogus -- there is not actually a frame at 0x00000028 or 0x00000001 etc., it's just that gdb got confused trying to unwind the stack and did its best. One problem is that Cygwin uses these sigfe/sigfe wrappers around most syscalls, another is that gdb doesn't have debug info for system DLLs and if they use FPO there's no way to unwind through them. > Also when using the new gdb is the message about > "Frame did not save PC message" expected or is that an indication of some > limit exceeded or something else. It's just another an indication that gdb is having trouble unwinding, as with system DLLs with FPO enabled. Brian -- 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/