This is the mail archive of the
gdb-prs@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: gdb/778: gdb 20021001 (gdb 5.2.1+) sparc-sun-solaris2.8 bus error when eval expr
- From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow at mvista dot com>
- To: nobody at sources dot redhat dot com
- Cc: gdb-prs at sources dot redhat dot com,
- Date: 2 Oct 2002 00:38:01 -0000
- Subject: Re: gdb/778: gdb 20021001 (gdb 5.2.1+) sparc-sun-solaris2.8 bus error when eval expr
- Reply-to: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow at mvista dot com>
The following reply was made to PR gdb/778; it has been noted by GNATS.
From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@mvista.com>
To: rrh@cray.com
Cc: gdb-gnats@sources.redhat.com
Subject: Re: gdb/778: gdb 20021001 (gdb 5.2.1+) sparc-sun-solaris2.8 bus error when eval expr
Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2002 20:33:28 -0400
On Tue, Oct 01, 2002 at 11:22:13PM -0000, rrh@cray.com wrote:
>
> >Number: 778
> >Category: gdb
> >Synopsis: gdb 20021001 (gdb 5.2.1+) sparc-sun-solaris2.8 bus error when eval expr
> >Confidential: no
> >Severity: serious
> >Priority: medium
> >Responsible: unassigned
> >State: open
> >Class: sw-bug
> >Submitter-Id: net
> >Arrival-Date: Tue Oct 01 16:28:00 PDT 2002
> >Closed-Date:
> >Last-Modified:
> >Originator: rrh@cray.com
> >Release: GNU gdb 20021001 "sparc-sun-solaris2.8"
> >Organization:
> >Environment:
> "sparc-sun-solaris2.8"
> >Description:
> Evaluating an expression in the gdb prompt that requires
> invoking a virtual member function on the debugee causes the
> debugger to take a bus error. I couldn't create a simple
> example. The debugee was compiled using gcc 3.2.
>
> #0 check_typedef (type=0x63617365) at gdbtypes.c:1340
> 1340 while (TYPE_CODE (type) == TYPE_CODE_TYPEDEF)
>
> (note that the pointer 0x63617365 is the string 'case'!)
>
>
> Here's the backtrace of the debugger at the point of its bus error
> #0 check_typedef (type=0x63617365) at gdbtypes.c:1340
> #1 0x0005d67c in unpack_field_as_long (type=0x49f828, valaddr=0x536f48 "",
> fieldno=-24) at values.c:1050
0x63617365 is "case". Something is creating a completely invalid type.
What's the previous one (at 0x49f828) look like?
--
Daniel Jacobowitz
MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer