This is the mail archive of the
gdb@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: arm-elf-gdb crash
- From: Shaun Jackman <sjackman at gmail dot com>
- To: gdb at sources dot redhat dot com
- Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2005 10:35:17 -0600
- Subject: Re: arm-elf-gdb crash
- References: <7f45d9390505052026171614fd@mail.gmail.com> <20050506033126.GA6920@nevyn.them.org> <7f45d9390505052049550222ec@mail.gmail.com> <20050506040840.GB7038@nevyn.them.org> <7f45d93905050608406479775b@mail.gmail.com> <20050506154214.GA5359@nevyn.them.org> <7f45d93905050609033ff95af9@mail.gmail.com>
- Reply-to: Shaun Jackman <sjackman at gmail dot com>
2005/5/6, Shaun Jackman <sjackman@gmail.com>:
> On 5/6/05, Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org> wrote:
> > GDB associates registers to frames. It's written to the assumption
> > that there is always a frame; when there isn't, this is just one of
> > many things that is going to go wrong.
>
> When the target's gone toes-up like this, normally I don't want to do
> any further source-level debugging. I'm more interested in peeking and
> poking a few registers to do some post-mortem analysis before I reload
> the target. When a frame isn't available, could GDB fall back to a set
> of global registers?
>
> Cheers,
> Shaun
Hello,
This is a quick poll to see if there's been any movement on the "Value
being assigned to is no longer active." bug. It haunts me daily.
(gdb) set $cpsr=0x1f
Value being assigned to is no longer active.
Cheers!
Shaun