Re: "run", and executable file/symtab association?

[Michael Snyder <msnyder@redhat.com>]

Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> 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.

Hey guys,

Message received and acknowledged.  I'm on vacation this week.
Is it urgent?

Michael