From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp.polymtl.ca (smtp.polymtl.ca [132.207.4.11]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 113CE385800A for ; Thu, 25 Mar 2021 14:20:02 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 sourceware.org 113CE385800A Received: from simark.ca (simark.ca [158.69.221.121]) (authenticated bits=0) by smtp.polymtl.ca (8.14.7/8.14.7) with ESMTP id 12PEJrwL024127 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Thu, 25 Mar 2021 10:19:58 -0400 DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp.polymtl.ca 12PEJrwL024127 Received: from [10.0.0.11] (192-222-157-6.qc.cable.ebox.net [192.222.157.6]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by simark.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 768061E789; Thu, 25 Mar 2021 10:19:53 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: Need help with understanding truncated and corrupted backtraces To: Eli Zaretskii Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <83lfandydz.fsf@gnu.org> <6c4e73b8-6c0d-4c9c-a4ae-8de85976fde1@polymtl.ca> <83zgyrilyd.fsf@gnu.org> From: Simon Marchi Message-ID: <340a8bb9-87f8-1b37-7ba9-8d497535642e@polymtl.ca> Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2021 10:19:53 -0400 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.7.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <83zgyrilyd.fsf@gnu.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Poly-FromMTA: (simark.ca [158.69.221.121]) at Thu, 25 Mar 2021 14:19:53 +0000 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, DKIM_VALID_EF, NICE_REPLY_A, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL, SPF_HELO_PASS, SPF_PASS, TXREP autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on server2.sourceware.org X-BeenThere: gdb-patches@sourceware.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Gdb-patches mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2021 14:20:03 -0000 On 2021-03-25 6:09 a.m., Eli Zaretskii wrote: >> From: Simon Marchi >> Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2021 23:47:32 -0400 >> >>> Trying unwinder foo for frame 1 -> nope >>> Trying unwinder bar for frame 1 -> yes! >> >> I implemented this, it is available on the users/simark/frame-debug >> branch on sourceware: >> >> https://sourceware.org/git/?p=binutils-gdb.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/heads/users/simark/frame-debug >> >> It is not suitable for an upstream submission yet, but you can give it a >> try. I converted the "debug frame" messages to the new-ish system, >> which nests messages. It dramatically improves readability, IMO. > > Thanks. Is this supposed to work for 32-bit GDB, though? It looks > like the non-trivial changes are in amd64-windows-tdep.c, so I wonder > whether you only implemented this for 64-bit Widnows? The interesting bits are in the generic frame handling code, including the new printouts I added in the frame_unwind_try_unwinder function. amd64-windows-tdep.c just happens to have some frame-related debug prints, so simply I updated them as well. It would be interesting to see the output of your two backtraces, with "set debug frame 1" enabled (with my patches applied). Simon