On Thu, Jun 30, 2005 at 05:45:52PM +0100, Dave Korn wrote: >----Original Message---- >>From: Christopher Faylor >>Sent: 30 June 2005 15:58 >>On Thu, Jun 30, 2005 at 03:37:25PM +0100, Dave Korn wrote: >>>I think I remember noticing that backtracing across sigfe doesn't >>>always work too well. Then again, there could be a problem with the >>>debug info: >> >>"doesn't always" == "never". >> >>>>#3 0x00435d27 in fhandler_pipe::get_guard () >>> >>>makes no sense. But I would imagine the peculiarity is down to sigfe; >>>it does something unexpected to the stack frame, that the debug info >>>doesn't reflect. >> >>No, it's due to the fact that 0x00435d27 is an address in the >>application and the application has no debugging symbols. > >That doesn't explain how it managed to think that 0x0040xxxx was >somewhere in the middle of the dll.
Nor does the existence of sigfe in a stack chain cause gdb to change the way an address is turned into a symbol. fhandler_pipe::get_guard is a strange symbol that gdb is incorrectly choosing for the name of a function, possibly because it has the sign bit set and there's some inappropriate signed comparison somewhere in gdb's symbol handling code. cgf -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
