From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 26270 invoked by alias); 11 Nov 2007 23:05:11 -0000 Received: (qmail 26258 invoked by uid 22791); 11 Nov 2007 23:05:10 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from main.gmane.org (HELO ciao.gmane.org) (80.91.229.2) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Sun, 11 Nov 2007 23:05:05 +0000 Received: from root by ciao.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1IrLrS-0007J8-82 for gdb@sources.redhat.com; Sun, 11 Nov 2007 23:05:02 +0000 Received: from i577bf47d.versanet.de ([87.123.244.125]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sun, 11 Nov 2007 23:05:02 +0000 Received: from Stephen.Berman by i577bf47d.versanet.de with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sun, 11 Nov 2007 23:05:02 +0000 To: gdb@sources.redhat.com From: Stephen Berman Subject: Re: GDB cannot access memory after Emacs abort Date: Sun, 11 Nov 2007 23:05:00 -0000 Message-ID: <87ir48gzet.fsf@escher.local.home> References: <87r6j6rvn3.fsf@escher.local.home> <87hcjtllau.fsf@escher.local.home> <1194763094.16917.278.camel@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.0.50 (gnu/linux) X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2007-11/txt/msg00087.txt.bz2 On Sun, 11 Nov 2007 09:44:23 +0200 Eli Zaretskii wrote: > the upshot of all this is that `bt' doesn't > work, as shown below: > >> > > (gdb) bt >> > > #0 abort () at emacs.c:431 >> > > Cannot access memory at address 0xbfd6836c >> > > Cannot access memory at address 0x8321b6c > > Stack overflow, maybe? Due to an infinite loop in Emacs? (I don't know if the bug I reported caused this, maybe Jan D. can answer that.) But as I mentioned in my other followup, I've never experienced an infinite loop in Emacs that locked up X. If it was due to a stack overflow, does that mean GDB is above suspicion in this case? Steve Berman