From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 26937 invoked by alias); 15 Sep 2004 20:13:38 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 26926 invoked from network); 15 Sep 2004 20:13:37 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 15 Sep 2004 20:13:37 -0000 Received: from int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (int-mx1.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.254]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.12.11/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i8FKDa9i010414 for ; Wed, 15 Sep 2004 16:13:37 -0400 Received: from localhost.redhat.com (porkchop.devel.redhat.com [172.16.58.2]) by int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i8FKDUr20129; Wed, 15 Sep 2004 16:13:36 -0400 Received: from gnu.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EAB5228D2; Wed, 15 Sep 2004 16:11:18 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <4148A1E6.5080306@gnu.org> Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2004 20:13:00 -0000 From: Andrew Cagney User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; NetBSD macppc; en-GB; rv:1.4.1) Gecko/20040831 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Michael Chastain Cc: gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: Abort backtrace when consecutive zero PCs? References: <41487D1D.7040504@gnu.org> <41488E3B.nailC0Y21J3UA@mindspring.com> In-Reply-To: <41488E3B.nailC0Y21J3UA@mindspring.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2004-09/txt/msg00129.txt.bz2 > Andrew Cagney wrote: > >>> While we definitly need to allow a backtrace through a single zero PC >>> (for a NULL pointer call - signull.exp) should we make GDB abort when >>> two or more consecutive frames have a zero PC? > > > Perhaps abort it after an identical frame is seen a second time? > It's not the zero-ness that kills us, it's the repetition. For the case I'm looking at, successive frames have a zero PC and a monotonic changing stack pointer, so there is no repetition. Andrew