This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: RFC: %ebp-based backtrace patch
- From: Mark Kettenis <mark dot kettenis at xs4all dot nl>
- To: drow at false dot org
- Cc: mark dot kettenis at xs4all dot nl, gdb-patches at sourceware dot org, matz at suse dot de
- Date: Sun, 27 Dec 2009 22:37:19 +0100 (CET)
- Subject: Re: RFC: %ebp-based backtrace patch
- References: <20090706183316.GA26074@caradoc.them.org> <200907062157.n66LvSVF007634@brahms.sibelius.xs4all.nl> <20090707130040.GA11040@caradoc.them.org> <200907080901.n6891GVC029930@brahms.sibelius.xs4all.nl> <20090708125330.GA29881@caradoc.them.org> <20091227165916.GA24409@caradoc.them.org>
> Date: Sun, 27 Dec 2009 11:59:16 -0500
> From: Daniel Jacobowitz <email@example.com>
> On Wed, Jul 08, 2009 at 08:53:30AM -0400, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 08, 2009 at 11:01:16AM +0200, Mark Kettenis wrote:
> > > Before comitting this diff, I ran the testsuite, and noticed a
> > > regression. The problem is that if you do a function call through a
> > > null-function-pointer or an otherwise corrupt function pointer, and
> > > get a SIGSEGV, the backtrace no longer shows the frame that did the
> > > function call.
> > >
> > > Until we come up with a way to fix this issue, I'm not going to commit
> > > the diff.
> > Hmm. if (target_read_memory (pc, buf, 1)) ? That's how a similar
> > issue is handled on ARM, in arm_stub_unwind_sniffer.
> Hi Mark,
> I was looking through Ubuntu's local GDB patches and noticed this one
> is still outstanding. Will the above work? I can test and
> (hopefully) commit it, if you'd like.
Sorry, but I don't see how this would solve things. Do you have a
diff for me to look at?