This report is actually for GDB in CVS (6.8.50.20090123-cvs) but that's not one of the listed options. In one terminal: gdbserver localhost:4444 myprog In another: gdb myprog ... (gdb) target remote localhost:4444 Remote debugging using localhost:4444 0xb7fda810 in ?? () from /lib/ld-linux.so.2 (gdb) info frame Stack level 0, frame at 0x0: eip = 0xb7fda810; saved eip findvar.c:299: internal-error: value_of_register_lazy: Assertion `frame_id_p (get_frame_id (frame))' failed. A problem internal to GDB has been detected, further debugging may prove unreliable. Quit this debugging session? (y or n) Previously (GNU gdb 6.6-debian): (gdb) target remote localhost:4444 Remote debugging using localhost:4444 0xb7f3f810 in ?? () from /lib/ld-linux.so.2 (gdb) inf frame Stack level 0, frame at 0x0: eip = 0xb7f3f810; saved eip 0xb7f3f810 Outermost frame: unwinder did not report frame ID Arglist at unknown address. Locals at unknown address, Previous frame's sp in esp The saved eip was reported as the same as the actual eip. I'm not sure if that's right but in any case "info frame" shouldn't throw an error but report "unknown address" if that's the case.
The following patch, sent as an RFC, fixes this issue: http://www.sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2009-08/msg00524.html
Subject: "info frame: generates an error when remote debugging > The following patch, sent as an RFC, fixes this issue: > > http://www.sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2009-08/msg00524.html I can't comment on the broader implication of this patch but I can confirm that it does, indeed, fix the bug that I reported. Thanks, Nick
To reproduce the problem without gdbserver, try the following on x86-linux: (gdb) b _start Breakpoint 1 at 0x80482a0 (gdb) run Starting program: /lot.a/brobecke/info-frame/ex/foo Breakpoint 1, 0x080482a0 in _start () (gdb) info frame Stack level 0, frame at 0x0: eip = 0x80482a0 in _start; saved eip /homes/brobecke/act/gdb-public/gdb/findvar.c:304: internal-error: value_of_regis ter_lazy: Assertion `frame_id_p (get_frame_id (frame))' failed.
This patch went in, so I'm guessing this bug should be closed... ?
> This patch went in, so I'm guessing this bug should be closed... ? Yes.