From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-prs-return-17445-listarch-gdb-prs=sources.redhat.com@sourceware.org>
Received: (qmail 30731 invoked by alias); 7 Feb 2015 17:56:30 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gdb-prs-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gdb-prs.sourceware.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gdb-prs-subscribe@sourceware.org>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-prs/>
List-Post: <mailto:gdb-prs@sourceware.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-prs-help@sourceware.org>, <http://sourceware.org/lists.html#faqs>
Sender: gdb-prs-owner@sourceware.org
Received: (qmail 30702 invoked by uid 48); 7 Feb 2015 17:56:29 -0000
From: "mdaniels at lanl dot gov" <sourceware-bugzilla@sourceware.org>
To: gdb-prs@sourceware.org
Subject: [Bug guile/17923] scheme exception about invalid object in a
 backtrace
Date: Sun, 08 Feb 2015 22:02:00 -0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gdb
X-Bugzilla-Component: guile
X-Bugzilla-Version: 7.8
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: 
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: mdaniels at lanl dot gov
X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P2
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at sourceware dot org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Flags:
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-17923-4717-GkZbrZbhct@http.sourceware.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-17923-4717@http.sourceware.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-17923-4717@http.sourceware.org/bugzilla/>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-SW-Source: 2015-q1/txt/msg00210.txt.bz2

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17923

--- Comment #6 from Marcus Daniels <mdaniels at lanl dot gov> ---
"for the frame problem, is it possible to set a breakpoint on one of the frame
functions early on, when f_smob->inferior is not NULL, set a watchpoint on it,
and then continue?  When the watchpoint triggers a backtrace may be sufficient
to isolate the culprit."

Could you clarify if there is ever a situation in which f_smob->inferior ought
to become NULL, even if the debugged program is continuing?

For now I'm trying to add guards to frame-* calls using the modified
frame-valid to see what other problems I run into.  If it is an endless chain
of problems, I can't afford to keep debugging and need to take another
approach.  If it is a bounded set, then perhaps I can afford to debug these
issues.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.