From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-return-24376-listarch-gdb=sources.redhat.com@sourceware.org>
Received: (qmail 26550 invoked by alias); 18 Feb 2006 15:28:37 -0000
Received: (qmail 26541 invoked by uid 22791); 18 Feb 2006 15:28:36 -0000
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from nevyn.them.org (HELO nevyn.them.org) (66.93.172.17)     by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31.1) with ESMTP; Sat, 18 Feb 2006 15:28:35 +0000
Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 4.54) 	id 1FAU0a-0005Y1-9K; Sat, 18 Feb 2006 10:28:28 -0500
Date: Sat, 18 Feb 2006 16:23:00 -0000
From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org>
To: Randolph Chung <randolph@tausq.org>
Cc: msnyder@redhat.com, gdb@sources.redhat.com
Subject: Re: "run", and executable file/symtab association?
Message-ID: <20060218152827.GA21241@nevyn.them.org>
Mail-Followup-To: Randolph Chung <randolph@tausq.org>, msnyder@redhat.com, 	gdb@sources.redhat.com
References: <dsu1q7$93m$1@sea.gmane.org> <20060215030909.GB8700@nevyn.them.org> <43F6EEB4.4040002@tausq.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <43F6EEB4.4040002@tausq.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.8i
X-IsSubscribed: yes
Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gdb-subscribe@sourceware.org>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb/>
List-Post: <mailto:gdb@sourceware.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-help@sourceware.org>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: gdb-owner@sourceware.org
X-SW-Source: 2006-02/txt/msg00236.txt.bz2

On Sat, Feb 18, 2006 at 05:53:56PM +0800, Randolph Chung wrote:
> >If kill_inferior calls pop_target it'd better be expecting to close a
> >native target, not the exec target further down the stack.  This looks
> >like a bug in the checkpoint code somewhere.  Ugh, the bits in
> >kill_inferior are a little scary.  First thing to do: figure out what's
> >on the target stack (follow current_target.beneath), and why it's got
> >execution if it's popping exec_close.
> 
> The target stack looks like:
> 
> (top-gdb) print current_target->to_shortname
> $2 = 0x334298 "child"
> (top-gdb) print current_target->beneath->to_shortname
> $3 = 0x334298 "child"
> (top-gdb) print current_target->beneath->beneath->to_shortname
> $4 = 0x2d7d6c "exec"
> (top-gdb) print current_target->beneath->beneath->beneath->to_shortname
> $5 = 0x312614 "None"
> 
> And to_close is:
> (top-gdb) print current_target->to_close
> $6 = (void (*)(int)) @0x38465a: 0x47954 <exec_close>

pop_target calls current_target->to_close.  I am suspecting that it
should call target_stack->to_close instead.

> I don't pretend to understand this code and why if there are forks, we 
> should be popping the target to kill everything.

I don't either.

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery