This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [RFA] Windows x64 SEH unwinder (v2)
- From: Tristan Gingold <gingold at adacore dot com>
- To: Roland Schwingel <roland dot schwingel at onevision dot de>
- Cc: Pedro Alves <palves at redhat dot com>, Joel Brobecker <brobecker at adacore dot com>, "gdb-patches at sourceware dot org ml" <gdb-patches at sourceware dot org>
- Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2013 15:53:13 +0200
- Subject: Re: [RFA] Windows x64 SEH unwinder (v2)
- References: <51FF8B7F dot 8010505 at onevision dot de>
On Aug 5, 2013, at 1:24 PM, Roland Schwingel <roland.schwingel@onevision.de> wrote:
> Hi Tristan...
>
> gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org wrote on 08.07.2013 12:55:21:
>
> > Hello,
> >
> > this is the second version of the patch we submitted in January.
> > I have rewritten amd64_windows_frame_decode_epilogue according to the
> > very serious review and comments from Pedro.
> >
> > Tristan.
> Today I gave your SEH unwinder patch a try. I hopped to get an issue from 2005 resolved.
>
> (See: http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb/2005-04/msg00113.html)
>
> I compiled my test C code from this post using GCC 4.8.1 for x64 windows
> with no special options beside of a single -g.
>
> Stack frames are way better... Congratulations... But:
> When inspecting frames I see problems showing the content of variables. I cannot look into any of the applications vars. gdb just shows eg:
>
> #1: 0x0000000000401577 in func4 (num=<error reading variable: can't compute CFA for this frame>) at gdb_crash.c:26
>
> also a "p num" show the same error.
>
> Did I do something wrong? Is there a hidden trick that needs to be applied to get this going that I couldn't find from reading the patch?
Doesn't ring a bell here. Can you post gdb_crash.c ?
Tristan.