Infinite backtrace on arm

[Jon Ringle]

On Monday 27 October 2003 10:23 am, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 27, 2003 at 10:21:54AM -0500, Andrew Cagney wrote:
> > >The problem is that there's not much GDB can do with hand-coded
> > >assembly functions.
> > >
> > >However, GDB ought to be able to detect and stop that loop without any
> > >of this.  It seems to me that the problem is not two frames with the
> > >same PC, but two frames with their PC "saved" in the same place - i.e.
> > >GDB failing to figure out where the PC is saved.  This is made a little
> > >tricky in current versions of GDB, because the PC is normally unwound
> > >using frame_pc_unwind (which doesn't tell us where it was saved, since
> > >the interface doesn't assume it's a single normal register), and the
> > >core code doesn't have a concept of a "PC register" any more.
> > >
> > >Andrew, any idea on how to do this?
> >
> > Before anything else, find out what a current GDB does - its code to
> > detect a "corrupt stack" is now much improved.
>
> I'll check - I don't have my test for this problem handy any more but I
> know as of a month or two ago the problem still existed.

Here is a debug session debugging gdb 2003-10-27-cvs. I enabled frame_debug
which I hope will contain useful information:

Jon


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: gdb-session.log
Type: text/x-log
Size: 16048 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://sourceware.org/pipermail/gdb/attachments/20031027/9e324913/attachment.bin>