* Issue with GDB 7.0 on MIPS(gcc 4.4.1) @ 2011-11-11 7:48 naveen yadav 2011-11-11 16:31 ` Ian Lance Taylor 0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread From: naveen yadav @ 2011-11-11 7:48 UTC (permalink / raw) To: gcc-help, gcc-help, gdb Hi All, I am running one application and it generate core dump. When I run bt . (gdb) bt #0 wepp (gn=0x5d5f58, ef=0x5c43000, Bytes=429496729, gcOs=0x5c3408f) #1 CompactCollect (gn=0x5d5f58, ef=0x5c43000, Bytes=429496729, gcOs=0x5c3408f) ... In above case we got crash in wepp(). CompactCollect () is main function and wepp() is another function which got called from CompactCollect (). When I check the assembly wepp() become inline. So i got bit surprise when i check that function parameter;s for both wepp() and CompactCollect () are same. So is it correct behaviour ? that calling and calle have same parameter Thanks. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: Issue with GDB 7.0 on MIPS(gcc 4.4.1) 2011-11-11 7:48 Issue with GDB 7.0 on MIPS(gcc 4.4.1) naveen yadav @ 2011-11-11 16:31 ` Ian Lance Taylor 2011-11-14 5:14 ` naveen yadav 0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread From: Ian Lance Taylor @ 2011-11-11 16:31 UTC (permalink / raw) To: naveen yadav; +Cc: gcc-help, gdb naveen yadav <yad.naveen@gmail.com> writes: > I am running one application and it generate core dump. When I run bt . > (gdb) bt > #0 wepp (gn=0x5d5f58, ef=0x5c43000, Bytes=429496729, gcOs=0x5c3408f) > #1 CompactCollect (gn=0x5d5f58, ef=0x5c43000, Bytes=429496729, gcOs=0x5c3408f) > ... > > In above case > we got crash in wepp(). > CompactCollect () is main function and wepp() is another function > which got called from CompactCollect (). > > When I check the assembly wepp() become inline. > So i got bit surprise when i check that function parameter;s for both > wepp() and CompactCollect () are same. > > So is it correct behaviour ? that calling and calle have same parameter Without any information about the source code, I don't see how we can tell whether having the same parameters is correct behaviour or not. That said, it is certainly possible that the arguments of the inlined function are not being displayed correctly. Mainline gcc has gotten quite a bit better about debug info for inlined functions and in general for avoiding incorrect display of variables in optimized code. Ian ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: Issue with GDB 7.0 on MIPS(gcc 4.4.1) 2011-11-11 16:31 ` Ian Lance Taylor @ 2011-11-14 5:14 ` naveen yadav 2011-11-14 6:50 ` Ian Lance Taylor 0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread From: naveen yadav @ 2011-11-14 5:14 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Ian Lance Taylor; +Cc: gcc-help, gdb Hi Ian, My GCC version 4.4.1. and here is source code. http://gingacdn.lavid.ufpb.br/projects/ginga-j/repository/revisions/7e233c1906624b0e01698415987aada3fd8c3fe4/entry/gingaj/jvm/src/share/javavm/runtime/gc/generational/gen_markcompact.c and here is backtrace. mips-gdb> bt sweep (gen=0x5d5f508, ee=0x5c4300d0, numBytes=4294967295, gcOpts=0x5c3408f8) #1 CVMgenMarkCompactCollect (gen=0x5d5f508, ee=0x5c4300d0, numBytes=4294967295, gcOpts=0x5c3408f8) ...... If you need more detail pls let me know.. Thanks. On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 10:01 PM, Ian Lance Taylor <iant@google.com> wrote: > naveen yadav <yad.naveen@gmail.com> writes: > >> I am running one application and it generate core dump. When I run bt . >> (gdb) bt >> #0 sweep (gn=0x5d5f58, ef=0x5c43000, Bytes=429496729, gcOs=0x5c3408f) >> #1 CompactCollect (gn=0x5d5f58, ef=0x5c43000, Bytes=429496729, gcOs=0x5c3408f) >> ... >> >> In above case >> we got crash in wepp(). >> CompactCollect () is main function and wepp() is another function >> which got called from CompactCollect (). >> >> When I check the assembly wepp() become inline. >> So i got bit surprise when i check that function parameter;s for both >> wepp() and CompactCollect () are same. >> >> So is it correct behaviour ? that calling and calle have same parameter > > Without any information about the source code, I don't see how we can > tell whether having the same parameters is correct behaviour or not. > > That said, it is certainly possible that the arguments of the inlined > function are not being displayed correctly. Mainline gcc has gotten > quite a bit better about debug info for inlined functions and in general > for avoiding incorrect display of variables in optimized code. > > Ian > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: Issue with GDB 7.0 on MIPS(gcc 4.4.1) 2011-11-14 5:14 ` naveen yadav @ 2011-11-14 6:50 ` Ian Lance Taylor 2011-11-14 7:19 ` naveen yadav 0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread From: Ian Lance Taylor @ 2011-11-14 6:50 UTC (permalink / raw) To: naveen yadav; +Cc: gcc-help, gdb naveen yadav <yad.naveen@gmail.com> writes: > My GCC version 4.4.1. and here is source code. > > http://gingacdn.lavid.ufpb.br/projects/ginga-j/repository/revisions/7e233c1906624b0e01698415987aada3fd8c3fe4/entry/gingaj/jvm/src/share/javavm/runtime/gc/generational/gen_markcompact.c > > and here is backtrace. > > mips-gdb> bt > sweep (gen=0x5d5f508, ee=0x5c4300d0, numBytes=4294967295, > gcOpts=0x5c3408f8) #1 > CVMgenMarkCompactCollect (gen=0x5d5f508, ee=0x5c4300d0, > numBytes=4294967295, gcOpts=0x5c3408f8) Looking at the code, it's perfectly obvious that gdb is reporting the arguments to sweep incorrectly. The sweep function takes three arugments: thisGen, base, and top. It is called only from CVMgenMarkCompactCollect, and that function takes four arguments, gen, ee, numBytes, and gcOpts. Clearly the parameters to sweep are being reported incorrectly. I don't think you really needed me to tell you that. I don't know where the bug is, but my guess would be that gcc 4.4.1 is not generating correct debug info for inlined functions. Ian > > ...... > > If you need more detail pls let me know.. > Thanks. > > On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 10:01 PM, Ian Lance Taylor <iant@google.com> wrote: >> naveen yadav <yad.naveen@gmail.com> writes: >> >>> I am running one application and it generate core dump. When I run bt . >>> (gdb) bt >>> #0 sweep (gn=0x5d5f58, ef=0x5c43000, Bytes=429496729, gcOs=0x5c3408f) >>> #1 CompactCollect (gn=0x5d5f58, ef=0x5c43000, Bytes=429496729, gcOs=0x5c3408f) >>> ... >>> >>> In above case >>> we got crash in wepp(). >>> CompactCollect () is main function and wepp() is another function >>> which got called from CompactCollect (). >>> >>> When I check the assembly wepp() become inline. >>> So i got bit surprise when i check that function parameter;s for both >>> wepp() and CompactCollect () are same. >>> >>> So is it correct behaviour ? that calling and calle have same parameter >> >> Without any information about the source code, I don't see how we can >> tell whether having the same parameters is correct behaviour or not. >> >> That said, it is certainly possible that the arguments of the inlined >> function are not being displayed correctly. Mainline gcc has gotten >> quite a bit better about debug info for inlined functions and in general >> for avoiding incorrect display of variables in optimized code. >> >> Ian >> ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: Issue with GDB 7.0 on MIPS(gcc 4.4.1) 2011-11-14 6:50 ` Ian Lance Taylor @ 2011-11-14 7:19 ` naveen yadav 2011-11-14 18:01 ` Ian Lance Taylor 0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread From: naveen yadav @ 2011-11-14 7:19 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Ian Lance Taylor; +Cc: gcc-help, gdb Thanks Ian, Yes problem that sweep () function shows the argument of CVMgenMarkCompactCollect () function. sweep() function got inlined. So I just request is there any patch available to fix this problem ? Thanks On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 12:20 PM, Ian Lance Taylor <iant@google.com> wrote: > naveen yadav <yad.naveen@gmail.com> writes: > >> My GCC version 4.4.1. and here is source code. >> >> http://gingacdn.lavid.ufpb.br/projects/ginga-j/repository/revisions/7e233c1906624b0e01698415987aada3fd8c3fe4/entry/gingaj/jvm/src/share/javavm/runtime/gc/generational/gen_markcompact.c >> >> and here is backtrace. >> >> mips-gdb> bt >> sweep (gen=0x5d5f508, ee=0x5c4300d0, numBytes=4294967295, >> gcOpts=0x5c3408f8) #1 >> CVMgenMarkCompactCollect (gen=0x5d5f508, ee=0x5c4300d0, >> numBytes=4294967295, gcOpts=0x5c3408f8) > > Looking at the code, it's perfectly obvious that gdb is reporting the > arguments to sweep incorrectly. The sweep function takes three > arugments: thisGen, base, and top. It is called only from > CVMgenMarkCompactCollect, and that function takes four arguments, gen, > ee, numBytes, and gcOpts. > > Clearly the parameters to sweep are being reported incorrectly. I don't > think you really needed me to tell you that. I don't know where the bug > is, but my guess would be that gcc 4.4.1 is not generating correct debug > info for inlined functions. > > Ian > > >> >> ...... >> >> If you need more detail pls let me know.. >> Thanks. >> >> On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 10:01 PM, Ian Lance Taylor <iant@google.com> wrote: >>> naveen yadav <yad.naveen@gmail.com> writes: >>> >>>> I am running one application and it generate core dump. When I run bt . >>>> (gdb) bt >>>> #0 sweep (gn=0x5d5f58, ef=0x5c43000, Bytes=429496729, gcOs=0x5c3408f) >>>> #1 CompactCollect (gn=0x5d5f58, ef=0x5c43000, Bytes=429496729, gcOs=0x5c3408f) >>>> ... >>>> >>>> In above case >>>> we got crash in wepp(). >>>> CompactCollect () is main function and wepp() is another function >>>> which got called from CompactCollect (). >>>> >>>> When I check the assembly wepp() become inline. >>>> So i got bit surprise when i check that function parameter;s for both >>>> wepp() and CompactCollect () are same. >>>> >>>> So is it correct behaviour ? that calling and calle have same parameter >>> >>> Without any information about the source code, I don't see how we can >>> tell whether having the same parameters is correct behaviour or not. >>> >>> That said, it is certainly possible that the arguments of the inlined >>> function are not being displayed correctly. Mainline gcc has gotten >>> quite a bit better about debug info for inlined functions and in general >>> for avoiding incorrect display of variables in optimized code. >>> >>> Ian >>> > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: Issue with GDB 7.0 on MIPS(gcc 4.4.1) 2011-11-14 7:19 ` naveen yadav @ 2011-11-14 18:01 ` Ian Lance Taylor 0 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread From: Ian Lance Taylor @ 2011-11-14 18:01 UTC (permalink / raw) To: naveen yadav; +Cc: gcc-help, gdb naveen yadav <yad.naveen@gmail.com> writes: > So I just request is there any patch available to fix this problem ? I don't know. As I said earlier, current versions of gcc are much better at debugging info for inlined functions, and are much better at not incorrectly reporting variable values for optimized code. However, I have no idea whether that will help with this specific problem. Ian > On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 12:20 PM, Ian Lance Taylor <iant@google.com> wrote: >> naveen yadav <yad.naveen@gmail.com> writes: >> >>> My GCC version 4.4.1. and here is source code. >>> >>> http://gingacdn.lavid.ufpb.br/projects/ginga-j/repository/revisions/7e233c1906624b0e01698415987aada3fd8c3fe4/entry/gingaj/jvm/src/share/javavm/runtime/gc/generational/gen_markcompact.c >>> >>> and here is backtrace. >>> >>> mips-gdb> bt >>> sweep (gen=0x5d5f508, ee=0x5c4300d0, numBytes=4294967295, >>> gcOpts=0x5c3408f8) #1 >>> CVMgenMarkCompactCollect (gen=0x5d5f508, ee=0x5c4300d0, >>> numBytes=4294967295, gcOpts=0x5c3408f8) >> >> Looking at the code, it's perfectly obvious that gdb is reporting the >> arguments to sweep incorrectly. The sweep function takes three >> arugments: thisGen, base, and top. It is called only from >> CVMgenMarkCompactCollect, and that function takes four arguments, gen, >> ee, numBytes, and gcOpts. >> >> Clearly the parameters to sweep are being reported incorrectly. I don't >> think you really needed me to tell you that. I don't know where the bug >> is, but my guess would be that gcc 4.4.1 is not generating correct debug >> info for inlined functions. >> >> Ian >> >> >>> >>> ...... >>> >>> If you need more detail pls let me know.. >>> Thanks. >>> >>> On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 10:01 PM, Ian Lance Taylor <iant@google.com> wrote: >>>> naveen yadav <yad.naveen@gmail.com> writes: >>>> >>>>> I am running one application and it generate core dump. When I run bt . >>>>> (gdb) bt >>>>> #0 sweep (gn=0x5d5f58, ef=0x5c43000, Bytes=429496729, gcOs=0x5c3408f) >>>>> #1 CompactCollect (gn=0x5d5f58, ef=0x5c43000, Bytes=429496729, gcOs=0x5c3408f) >>>>> ... >>>>> >>>>> In above case >>>>> we got crash in wepp(). >>>>> CompactCollect () is main function and wepp() is another function >>>>> which got called from CompactCollect (). >>>>> >>>>> When I check the assembly wepp() become inline. >>>>> So i got bit surprise when i check that function parameter;s for both >>>>> wepp() and CompactCollect () are same. >>>>> >>>>> So is it correct behaviour ? that calling and calle have same parameter >>>> >>>> Without any information about the source code, I don't see how we can >>>> tell whether having the same parameters is correct behaviour or not. >>>> >>>> That said, it is certainly possible that the arguments of the inlined >>>> function are not being displayed correctly. Mainline gcc has gotten >>>> quite a bit better about debug info for inlined functions and in general >>>> for avoiding incorrect display of variables in optimized code. >>>> >>>> Ian >>>> >> ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2011-11-14 18:01 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 6+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2011-11-11 7:48 Issue with GDB 7.0 on MIPS(gcc 4.4.1) naveen yadav 2011-11-11 16:31 ` Ian Lance Taylor 2011-11-14 5:14 ` naveen yadav 2011-11-14 6:50 ` Ian Lance Taylor 2011-11-14 7:19 ` naveen yadav 2011-11-14 18:01 ` Ian Lance Taylor
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox; as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).