This is the mail archive of the
gdb@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: gdb 5.1.1 runtime error (on HPUX11.0)
- From: Andrew Cagney <ac131313 at cygnus dot com>
- To: Scott Zetlan <scottzetlan at aol dot com>
- Cc: gdb at sources dot redhat dot com
- Date: Thu, 04 Apr 2002 09:46:25 -0500
- Subject: Re: gdb 5.1.1 runtime error (on HPUX11.0)
- References: <NFBBLMGMGLFHMBPLHKFIMENDCBAA.scottzetlan@aol.com>
Have a look at:
http://sources.redhat.com/cgi-bin/gnatsweb.pl?cmd=view%20audit-trail&database=gdb&pr=366
to see if that works around the problem.
It it does, can you add the below information to that bug report. It is
definitly useful.
Andrew
> I'm getting an odd runtime error from gdb 5.1.1 which I compiled under HP-UX
> 11.00. Here's the banner from gdb when it starts up:
>
> GNU gdb 5.1.1
> Copyright 2002 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
> GDB is free software, covered by the GNU General Public License, and you are
> welcome to change it and/or distribute copies of it under certain
> conditions.
> Type "show copying" to see the conditions.
> There is absolutely no warranty for GDB. Type "show warranty" for details.
> This GDB was configured as "hppa2.0w-hp-hpux11.00".
>
> I've been building in a separate directory from the code, and my configure
> line looks like:
> /home/szetlan/.../configure --prefix=/home/szetlan/binutil
>
> Here's the problem: gdb starts just fine, but then when I attempt to run a
> program, it hangs. I've gotten a core dump from gdb, which I traced with
> gdb, and found that it's hanging at add_thread (thread.c) called from
> child_acknowledge_created_inferior (infttrace.c).
>
> It appears that child...inferior () accepts an int (int pid) as an argument,
> and then passes that int to add_thread (line 3126). The add_thread()
> function actually takes a ptid_t (typdef'd in def.h as a struct ptid) as an
> argument. My core dump shows that gdb is attempting to access memory at
> 0x3d4, which evaluates to 980, or the pid of the child process.
>
> I've been able to build the same code just fine under Solaris. So... any
> ideas what I'm missing? The only other major difference I can see is that
> on HP, I'm running gcc 3.0, and on Solaris, I've got 3.0.4.
>
> Scott
>
>