[Bug tdep/26364] New: [aarch64] gdb/frame.c:593: internal-error: frame_id get_frame_id(frame_info*): Assertion `stashed' failed.

[Bug tdep/26364] New: [aarch64] gdb/frame.c:593: internal-error: frame_id get_frame_id(frame_info*): Assertion `stashed' failed.

[vries at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26364

            Bug ID: 26364
           Summary: [aarch64] gdb/frame.c:593: internal-error: frame_id
                    get_frame_id(frame_info*): Assertion `stashed' failed.
           Product: gdb
           Version: HEAD
            Status: NEW
          Severity: normal
          Priority: P2
         Component: tdep
          Assignee: unassigned at sourceware dot org
          Reporter: vries at gcc dot gnu.org
  Target Milestone: ---

With openSUSE Leap 15.1/15.2 on aarch64, I run into:
...
(gdb) PASS: gdb.threads/process-dies-while-handling-bp.exp: non_stop=on:
cond_bp_target=1: continue &
[New Thread 0xffffb7e131f0 (LWP 1922)]^M
[New Thread 0xffffb76121f0 (LWP 1923)]^M
[New Thread 0xffffb6e111f0 (LWP 1924)]^M
[New Thread 0xffffb66101f0 (LWP 1926)]^M
[New Thread 0xffffb5e0f1f0 (LWP 1927)]^M
[New Thread 0xffffb560e1f0 (LWP 1928)]^M
[New Thread 0xffffb4e0d1f0 (LWP 1929)]^M
[New Thread 0xffffb460c1f0 (LWP 1930)]^M
[New Thread 0xffffb3e0b1f0 (LWP 1931)]^M
[New Thread 0xffffb360a1f0 (LWP 1932)]^M
Error in testing breakpoint condition:^M
Cannot access memory at address 0xaaaaaaaca0d8^M
^M
Thread 2 "process-dies-wh" hit Breakpoint 2, thread_func
(../../gdb/frame.c:593: internal-error: frame_id get_frame_id(frame_info*):
Assertion `stashed' failed.^M
A problem internal to GDB has been detected,^M
further debugging may prove unreliable.^M
KFAIL: gdb.threads/process-dies-while-handling-bp.exp: non_stop=on:
cond_bp_target=1: inferior 1 exited (GDB internal error) (PRMS: gdb/18749)
...

This may well be a duplicate of PR18749, it's just that I don't know this
manifestation of it.

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

[Bug tdep/26364] [aarch64] gdb/frame.c:593: internal-error: frame_id get_frame_id(frame_info*): Assertion `stashed' failed.

[vries at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26364

Tom de Vries <vries at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |alahay01 at gcc dot gnu.org,
                   |                            |luis.machado at linaro dot org

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

[Bug tdep/26364] [aarch64] gdb/frame.c:593: internal-error: frame_id get_frame_id(frame_info*): Assertion `stashed' failed.

[luis.machado at linaro dot org]

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26364

--- Comment #1 from Luis Machado <luis.machado at linaro dot org> ---
Similarly to 26362, could you please attach a tarball of the test run and the
log file?

I don't have access to a openSUSE system at the moment.

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

[Bug tdep/26364] [aarch64] gdb/frame.c:593: internal-error: frame_id get_frame_id(frame_info*): Assertion `stashed' failed.

[vries at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26364

--- Comment #2 from Tom de Vries <vries at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Created attachment 12761
  --> https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=12761&action=edit
pruned gdb.log file

I've pruned the gdb.log file to just this test-case.

I don't have access to the build artefacts of obs, so in order to get the gdb
test dir I need to find an aarch64 machine and setup building and testing gdb
myself.

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

[Bug tdep/26364] [aarch64] gdb/frame.c:593: internal-error: frame_id get_frame_id(frame_info*): Assertion `stashed' failed.

[vries at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26364

--- Comment #3 from Tom de Vries <vries at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Hmm, PR25350 looks similar.

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

[Bug tdep/26364] [aarch64] gdb/frame.c:593: internal-error: frame_id get_frame_id(frame_info*): Assertion `stashed' failed.

[luis.machado at linaro dot org]

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26364

--- Comment #4 from Luis Machado <luis.machado at linaro dot org> ---
I see commit 256ae5dbc73d1348850f86ee77a0dc3b04bc7cc0 handled a similar
problem. It seems to be a more general issue.

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

[Bug tdep/26364] [aarch64] gdb/frame.c:593: internal-error: frame_id get_frame_id(frame_info*): Assertion `stashed' failed.

[simark at simark dot ca]

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26364

Simon Marchi <simark at simark dot ca> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |simark at simark dot ca

--- Comment #5 from Simon Marchi <simark at simark dot ca> ---
I'm chasing a problem that may or may not be related (I'll probably post a
patch soon).  Could you post a backtrace of GDB?  I could see if the backtrace
looks familiar.

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

[Bug tdep/26364] [aarch64] gdb/frame.c:593: internal-error: frame_id get_frame_id(frame_info*): Assertion `stashed' failed.

[vries at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26364

--- Comment #6 from Tom de Vries <vries at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Simon Marchi from comment #5)
> I'm chasing a problem that may or may not be related (I'll probably post a
> patch soon).  Could you post a backtrace of GDB?  I could see if the
> backtrace looks familiar.

I've tried to reproduce using "osc build -M testsuite openSUSE_Leap_15.2
aarch64" on an aarch64 machine. No luck.

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

[Bug tdep/26364] [aarch64] gdb/frame.c:593: internal-error: frame_id get_frame_id(frame_info*): Assertion `stashed' failed.

[vries at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26364

--- Comment #7 from Tom de Vries <vries at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Tom de Vries from comment #6)
> (In reply to Simon Marchi from comment #5)
> > I'm chasing a problem that may or may not be related (I'll probably post a
> > patch soon).  Could you post a backtrace of GDB?  I could see if the
> > backtrace looks familiar.
> 
> I've tried to reproduce using "osc build -M testsuite openSUSE_Leap_15.2
> aarch64" on an aarch64 machine. No luck.

Same with openSUSE_Leap 15.1.

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

[Bug tdep/26364] [aarch64] gdb/frame.c:593: internal-error: frame_id get_frame_id(frame_info*): Assertion `stashed' failed.

[vries at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26364

--- Comment #8 from Tom de Vries <vries at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Simon Marchi from comment #5)
> I'm chasing a problem that may or may not be related (I'll probably post a
> patch soon).  Could you post a backtrace of GDB?  I could see if the
> backtrace looks familiar.

It would be great if gdb emitted a backtrace upon abort, that could really help
with hard-to-reproduce problems ( FTR, mentioned this possibility here:
https://sourceware.org/pipermail/gdb/2020-July/048788.html ).

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

[Bug tdep/26364] [aarch64] gdb/frame.c:593: internal-error: frame_id get_frame_id(frame_info*): Assertion `stashed' failed.

[simark at simark dot ca]

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26364

--- Comment #9 from Simon Marchi <simark at simark dot ca> ---
(In reply to Tom de Vries from comment #8)
> (In reply to Simon Marchi from comment #5)
> > I'm chasing a problem that may or may not be related (I'll probably post a
> > patch soon).  Could you post a backtrace of GDB?  I could see if the
> > backtrace looks familiar.
> 
> It would be great if gdb emitted a backtrace upon abort, that could really
> help with hard-to-reproduce problems ( FTR, mentioned this possibility here:
> https://sourceware.org/pipermail/gdb/2020-July/048788.html ).

Agreed.  How easy is it to do, are there libraries that can help with that?

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

[Bug tdep/26364] [aarch64] gdb/frame.c:593: internal-error: frame_id get_frame_id(frame_info*): Assertion `stashed' failed.

[vries at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26364

--- Comment #10 from Tom de Vries <vries at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Simon Marchi from comment #9)
> (In reply to Tom de Vries from comment #8)
> > (In reply to Simon Marchi from comment #5)
> > > I'm chasing a problem that may or may not be related (I'll probably post a
> > > patch soon).  Could you post a backtrace of GDB?  I could see if the
> > > backtrace looks familiar.
> > 
> > It would be great if gdb emitted a backtrace upon abort, that could really
> > help with hard-to-reproduce problems ( FTR, mentioned this possibility here:
> > https://sourceware.org/pipermail/gdb/2020-July/048788.html ).
> 
> Agreed.  How easy is it to do, are there libraries that can help with that?

Libbacktrace comes to mind.  Anyway, I would first check how it's done for gcc,
AFAIR they do something similar there.

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

[Bug tdep/26364] [aarch64] gdb/frame.c:593: internal-error: frame_id get_frame_id(frame_info*): Assertion `stashed' failed.

[vries at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26364

--- Comment #11 from Tom de Vries <vries at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Tom de Vries from comment #10)
> (In reply to Simon Marchi from comment #9)
> > (In reply to Tom de Vries from comment #8)
> > > (In reply to Simon Marchi from comment #5)
> > > > I'm chasing a problem that may or may not be related (I'll probably post a
> > > > patch soon).  Could you post a backtrace of GDB?  I could see if the
> > > > backtrace looks familiar.
> > > 
> > > It would be great if gdb emitted a backtrace upon abort, that could really
> > > help with hard-to-reproduce problems ( FTR, mentioned this possibility here:
> > > https://sourceware.org/pipermail/gdb/2020-July/048788.html ).
> > 
> > Agreed.  How easy is it to do, are there libraries that can help with that?
> 
> Libbacktrace comes to mind.  Anyway, I would first check how it's done for
> gcc, AFAIR they do something similar there.

Filed gdb PR 26377 to track this.

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

[Bug tdep/26364] [aarch64] gdb/frame.c:593: internal-error: frame_id get_frame_id(frame_info*): Assertion `stashed' failed.

[vries at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26364

--- Comment #12 from Tom de Vries <vries at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Tom de Vries from comment #3)
> Hmm, PR25350 looks similar.

I managed to reproduce PR25350, but it didn't reproduce after recent commit
547ce8f00b "[gdb/backtrace] Fix printing of fortran string args".

I propose to tentatively mark this PR as duplicate of PR25350.

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

[Bug tdep/26364] [aarch64] gdb/frame.c:593: internal-error: frame_id get_frame_id(frame_info*): Assertion `stashed' failed.

[vries at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26364

Tom de Vries <vries at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Target Milestone|---                         |10.1
         Resolution|---                         |DUPLICATE
             Status|NEW                         |RESOLVED

--- Comment #13 from Tom de Vries <vries at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
I've rebuild a gdb package on openSUSE Leap 15.1/15.2 on aarch64 with a current
snapshot, and the originally reported internal-error does not occur anymore.

Tentatively marking a duplicate of PR25350.

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 25350 ***

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