This is the mail archive of the mailing list for the GDB project.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: Strange stack trace on Windows

Hi Joel...

Thanks for your reply... wrote on 19.03.2009 15:18:06:

> [...]
> The idea is that, during a function call made during single-stepping,
> you'll stop at the first instruction of the function.  At this point,
> we want to use the standard method of computing the frame cache rather
> than using the alternative method of trusting the %ebp register.
> This is what the check that I added was about.
> The patch that I sent was to be made on top of the first patch
> that I sent long ago. Did you do that?
Sure. I made my changes on top of your older patch. I studied your old/new
patch over and over. I had to slightly adjust it as your new patch does not
100% match the current cvs code. If you like I send you my full i386-tdep.c
(it is quite fat - so I do not attach it now)

> > In my tests both cache->pc and current_pc are ALWAYS identical.
> They should be identical when you step into a function during
> your "next" operation, but other should be different. If this is not
> the case, then I missed something (maybe something obvious).

Would it help if I make a simple plain c example (source + executable code)
which you can step thru on your own? If you have the time to do so...


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]