From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from simark.ca (simark.ca [158.69.221.121]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DBDEB3851C21 for ; Mon, 22 Jun 2020 18:08:46 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 sourceware.org DBDEB3851C21 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=simark.ca Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=simark@simark.ca Received: from [10.0.0.11] (173-246-6-90.qc.cable.ebox.net [173.246.6.90]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by simark.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 6FBED1E792; Mon, 22 Jun 2020 14:08:46 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: GDB reading eh_frame/eh_frame_hdr from disk To: Mitch Souders , gdb@sourceware.org References: From: Simon Marchi Message-ID: <2733a6b4-29ef-9fb6-3165-215501912d95@simark.ca> Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2020 14:08:45 -0400 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.9.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: fr Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.4 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, KAM_DMARC_STATUS, 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@sourceware.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Gdb mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2020 18:08:47 -0000 On 2020-06-18 6:37 p.m., Mitch Souders wrote: > Is there any way to tell gdb to use the in-memory representation from the > inferior of the .eh_frame/.eh_frame_hdr sections when doing stack > unwinding? As best I can determine, gdb always reaches out to disk to find > .eh_frame/.eh_frame_hdr to do stack unwinding. Our product is doing some > runtime manipulation of these sections and gdb's current behavior is > undesired. If the section is allocated in the process, then I'd expect GDB to read it from memory (when there's a process). You would need to step into GDB when it's doing one such read to see which target ends up handling the memory read. Simon