From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 20720 invoked by alias); 15 Sep 2004 23:35:38 -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 20700 invoked from network); 15 Sep 2004 23:35:36 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 15 Sep 2004 23:35:36 -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 i8FNZVb7027892 for ; Wed, 15 Sep 2004 19:35:31 -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 i8FNZPr16499; Wed, 15 Sep 2004 19:35:25 -0400 Received: from gnu.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4981928D2; Wed, 15 Sep 2004 19:33:13 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <4148D139.2050409@gnu.org> Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2004 23:35:00 -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: Daniel Jacobowitz Cc: gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: Abort backtrace when consecutive zero PCs? References: <41487D1D.7040504@gnu.org> <20040915221329.GA28732@nevyn.them.org> <4148C5A4.5000104@gnu.org> <20040915231021.GA30025@nevyn.them.org> In-Reply-To: <20040915231021.GA30025@nevyn.them.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2004-09/txt/msg00135.txt.bz2 >>>want to reject zero PC followed by a normal >>>> >(non-signal/dummy) frame, for exactly this reason... >> >>> >>> That sounds like a NULL pointer function call, which is what signull.exp >>> is all about. > > > "followed" in the other direction. If we unwind a normal frame, and > the next outer frame has a PC of zero, stop unwinding. We briefly had > this check for "if the next frame is not the innermost frame" and that > broke the equivalent of signull.exp; I think I proposed this in follow > discussion to that. Ah, now that makes sense. Andrew