Re: Increasing backtrace entries

[Michael Snyder <msnyder at specifix dot com>]

On Fri, 2008-06-27 at 02:04 -0400, JobHunts02@aol.com wrote:
> In a message dated 6/26/2008 11:27:23 AM Pacific  Daylight Time, 
> msnyder@specifix.com writes:
> > > > warning: exec file  is newer than core file.
> > > > Cannot access memory at  address  0x6d61706c
> > > > (gdb) bt
> > > > #0  0x1003cc60 in  wsrFind  (
> > > > reg_p=0x30284d9e <Address 0x30284d9e out  of  bounds>, rxc=-1)
> > > > at lwc.c:4024
> > > >  Cannot access memory  at address 0x30284d84
> > > > (gdb)
> >  > 
> > > Apparently the core file does not match the executable and/or  debugging
> > > info you have.  If that is the case then  nothing can be done about that,
> > > except by manually decoding the  frames.
> >
> > Yes, the appearance is that either (a) you have  recompiled
> > the executable since the corefile was generated, or (b)  it's
> > the wrong executable, in which case finding the right one
> >  will solve your problem.  
> 
> 
> I can assure you:
>  
> (a) The executable was not recompiled after the corefile was generated.  and
> (b) The executable is the same one that lead to the generation of the  
> corefile.
>  
> Any other explanations?  I am running Linux 2.6.10 on PowerPC.and was  using 
> gdb 6.8.  I have seen the same behavior using older versions of gdb  too.

None at all.  I was just noting this message gdb:

  warning: exec file  is newer than core file.

which suggests that the date stamp on the object 
file is more recent than the one on the corefile.

I have no other thoughts on the matter.