This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [RFA] let record_resume fail immediately on error
- From: Hui Zhu <teawater at gmail dot com>
- To: Joel Brobecker <brobecker at adacore dot com>
- Cc: Michael Snyder <msnyder at vmware dot com>, "gdb-patches at sourceware dot org" <gdb-patches at sourceware dot org>
- Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2009 12:37:54 +0800
- Subject: Re: [RFA] let record_resume fail immediately on error
- References: <daef60380909081905j6ee3c0b0tc8a938b99fc5a4e9@mail.gmail.com> <4ABE5E8D.8080209@vmware.com> <daef60380909280226g31654fech4a3a95cb7d68e3b9@mail.gmail.com> <20090928160728.GB9003@adacore.com> <daef60380909281932p5740ca97r6695e161e835adda@mail.gmail.com> <20090929212910.GG6362@adacore.com> <daef60380909291657l433e99e2m8b0194ab6c94d96e@mail.gmail.com> <20091014021007.GO5272@adacore.com> <daef60380910131927t4ab9e67fh7084b3c051fccd6c@mail.gmail.com> <20091014024202.GQ5272@adacore.com>
The important part is:
(gdb) c
Continuing.
Program terminated with signal SIGABRT, Aborted.
The program no longer exists.
(gdb) record stop
Process record is not started.
The inferior is dead.
"it looks like GDB
> is stuck on the unsupported instruction, and I'm not sure that this
> is an improvement."
Stop is better than dead, right?
Hui
On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 10:42, Joel Brobecker <brobecker@adacore.com> wrote:
>> (gdb) record
>> (gdb) c
>> Continuing.
>> Process record doesn't support instruction rdtsc.
>> Process record doesn't support instruction 0xf31 at address 0x8048352.
>> Process record: failed to record execution log.
>>
>> Program received signal SIGABRT, Aborted.
>
> OK - I can see that there is a SIGABRT, and so I suspect that this
> SIGABRT is a consequence of the problem you're trying to fix. ?Can you
> explain the sequence of events that occur inside GDB that cause this
> SIGABRT? ?Can you also explain how you are fixing this problem? Again,
> from a copy of the GDB session *after* your patch, it looks like GDB
> is stuck on the unsupported instruction, and I'm not sure that this
> is an improvement. ?So I'm assuming that I am not understanding what
> your fix is doing.
>
> --
> Joel
>