gdb/2117: printing a structure pointer gives "{<no data fields>}"

gdb/2117: printing a structure pointer gives "{<no data fields>}"

[gdb]

>Number:         2117
>Category:       gdb
>Synopsis:       printing a structure pointer gives "{<no data fields>}"
>Confidential:   no
>Severity:       serious
>Priority:       medium
>Responsible:    unassigned
>State:          open
>Class:          support
>Submitter-Id:   net
>Arrival-Date:   Tue Apr 18 20:08:01 GMT 2006
>Closed-Date:
>Last-Modified:
>Originator:     gdb@fierke.net
>Release:        5.0
>Organization:
>Environment:
This GDB was configured as "sparc-sun-solaris2.8"
>Description:
Ever since we migrated to new servers and new GDB (Old version was 4.16, sparc-sun-solaris2.6), I have not been able to retrieve the values from any structures.  Now, all I get when I do 'p *ordrec' is {<no data fields>}.  This is maddening!!  I'm sure I'm overlooking a very simple item (hopefully).  This machine and gdb were configured by our unix admin group, but I think they did a plain-vanilla install for GDB.  Heck, I'm not sure if I would know exactly how to install it correctly.

Can anybody help?  
>How-To-Repeat:

>Fix:

>Release-Note:
>Audit-Trail:
>Unformatted:

Re: gdb/2117: printing a structure pointer gives "{<no data fields>}"

[Daniel Jacobowitz]

The following reply was made to PR gdb/2117; it has been noted by GNATS.

From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org>
To: gdb@fierke.net
Cc: gdb-gnats@sources.redhat.com
Subject: Re: gdb/2117: printing a structure pointer gives "{<no data fields>}"
Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2006 16:10:32 -0400

 On Tue, Apr 18, 2006 at 08:03:22PM -0000, gdb@fierke.net wrote:
 > >Release:        5.0
 
 Is that really true?  Are you using GDB 5.0?  Check the startup
 message.
 
 What compiler are you using?  GCC, or Sun's?
 
 > Ever since we migrated to new servers and new GDB (Old version was
 > 4.16, sparc-sun-solaris2.6), I have not been able to retrieve the
 > values from any structures.  Now, all I get when I do 'p *ordrec' is
 > {<no data fields>}.  This is maddening!!  I'm sure I'm overlooking a
 > very simple item (hopefully).  This machine and gdb were configured
 > by our unix admin group, but I think they did a plain-vanilla install
 > for GDB.  Heck, I'm not sure if I would know exactly how to install
 > it correctly.
 
 If you are really using GDB 5.0, it's quite likely that this has been
 fixed since.  That release is almost six years old.  Please, upgrade
 and try again.
 
 -- 
 Daniel Jacobowitz
 CodeSourcery