On 02/16/2012 07:40 AM, Andreas Krebbel wrote: > On 02/15/2012 08:53 PM, Richard Sandiford wrote: >> This fixes gdb backtraces from a stripped executable, but libgcc's >> unwinder seems to get confused by having a stub in the middle of the >> trace that (a) isn't a signal handler and (b) has no frame of its own. >> The CFA at the point of the call to the stub (i.e. the point that is >> trying to catch the exception) is the same as the CFA at the call >> in the stub itself. We then trip: >> >> /* Don't let us unwind past the handler context. */ >> gcc_assert (!match_handler); >> >> in _Unwind_RaiseException_Phase2. What's the right thing to do here? > > Looks like the same problem I'm having on s390 with a java testcase: > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2012-01/msg00341.html
Same symptom, but isn't the s390 problem that you failed to set the signal frame bit on the signal frame? r~
