This is the mail archive of the
elfutils-devel@sourceware.org
mailing list for the elfutils project.
[Bug tools/23673] TEST ./tests/backtrace-dwarf fails on s390x in at least 0.173
- From: "michael.hudson at canonical dot com" <sourceware-bugzilla at sourceware dot org>
- To: elfutils-devel at sourceware dot org
- Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2018 00:13:32 +0000
- Subject: [Bug tools/23673] TEST ./tests/backtrace-dwarf fails on s390x in at least 0.173
- Auto-submitted: auto-generated
- References: <bug-23673-10460@http.sourceware.org/bugzilla/>
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23673
Michael Hudson-Doyle <michael.hudson at canonical dot com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |michael.hudson at canonical dot co
| |m
--- Comment #19 from Michael Hudson-Doyle <michael.hudson at canonical dot com> ---
I see a similar looking failure on arm64 on Ubuntu 18.10:
https://launchpadlibrarian.net/391377304/buildlog_ubuntu-cosmic-arm64.elfutils_0.170-0.5_BUILDING.txt.gz
I've gdb-ed this to the point that the key difference between a working system
(Ubuntu 18.04) and the failing one is that libc.so.6 has a lot more entries in
.eh_frame_hdr in the failing system. On 18.04 it fails to find a fde for
abort() (or raise, I think) and unwinds using .debug_frame and that succeeds.
On 18.10 it finds a fde for both raise and abort but fails to successfully
unwind past abort using it. I don't know either why the newer libc.so.6 has a
bigger eh_frame_hdr (it is glibc 2.28 vs 2.27 but also built with newer gcc and
binutils) or why unwinding using eh_frame info fails.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.