Re: Backtraces broken on i386 by unorthodox encoding of push %ebp

[Mike Frysinger <vapier at gentoo dot org>]

On Saturday 30 March 2013 17:02:55 Richard Smith wrote:
> Jan Kratochvil wrote:
> > You should always provide unwind information and then it is irrelevant
> > which instructions and/or which their coding you use.
> 
> Yes, you're right, I could quite easily.  But a design
> criterion for this project is that it is easy for
> third-parties to produce backtraces from production code
> (i.e. once debugging information has been stripped).

do what all the distros are doing now: split the debug files out into dedicated 
files.  then wherever you run gdb, d/l the debug files first and point gdb at 
them.
	objcopy --only-keep-debug file file.debug
	strip file


> Joel Brobecker wrote:
> > But if he cannot get the unwind information with the
> > binary, it might indeed be easy enough to improve the
> > prologue analyzer for x86. On x86_64, on the other hand,
> > we made the conscious design decision to rely more on
> > unwind info, so it's a little more questionable whether
> > we'd want to do that for this target.
> > 
> > The thing I wanted to add to Richard is that there is a
> > very high chance that the only way to get this fixed in
> > GDB is by submitting a patch himself (to gdb-patches).
> 
> I'll certainly take a look at it to see if it's as
> straightforward as it seems.
> 
> However, I expect the same problem will arise on x86_64, and
> I can understand not wanting to complicate unnecessarily its
> prologue analyzer.

i think all the sniffers live in gdb/i386-tdep.c
-mike

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.