Date: Mon, 19 May 2003 16:24:52 +1000 (EST) From: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au> To: Ian Dowse <iedowse@maths.tcd.ie> Cc: current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: kgdb missing stack frames Message-ID: <20030519161526.T22357@gamplex.bde.org> In-Reply-To: <200305182227.aa40061@salmon.maths.tcd.ie> References: <200305182227.aa40061@salmon.maths.tcd.ie>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, 18 May 2003, Ian Dowse wrote:
> Support for decoding i386 trap frames in kgdb appears to have been
> lost by revision 1.3 of contrib/gdb/gdb/config/i386/tm-fbsd.h, since
> FRAME_SAVED_PC() is defined there in terms of i386bsd_frame_saved_pc(),
> so fbsd_kern_frame_saved_pc() in gnu/usr.bin/binutils/gdb/kvm-fbsd.c
> never gets called. A simple way to see this is to run
>
> gdb -k kernel.debug /dev/mem
>
> and get a backtrace from the idle process:
>
> (kgdb) proc 11
> (kgdb) bt
> #0 mi_switch () at ../../../kern/kern_synch.c:530
> #1 0xc01edb92 in ithread_schedule (ithread=0xc1898280, do_switch=1)
> at ../../../kern/kern_intr.c:402
> #2 0xc034ad43 in sched_ithd (cookie=0xc1894d80)
> at ../../../i386/isa/ithread.c:77
> #3 0xc03380cc in Xintr14 () at {standard input}:382
> #4 0xc01ed16c in idle_proc (dummy=0x0) at ../../../kern/kern_idle.c:114
> #5 0xc01ecea0 in fork_exit (callout=0xc01ed130 <idle_proc>, arg=0x0,
> frame=0x0) at ../../../kern/kern_fork.c:792
>
> This is what it should look like:
>
> (kgdb) proc 11
> (kgdb) bt
> #0 mi_switch () at ../../../kern/kern_synch.c:530
> #1 0xc01edb92 in ithread_schedule (ithread=0xc1898280, do_switch=1)
> at ../../../kern/kern_intr.c:402
> #2 0xc034ad43 in sched_ithd (cookie=0xc1898280)
> at ../../../i386/isa/ithread.c:77
> #3 0xc033e242 in cpu_idle () at ../../../i386/i386/machdep.c:1074
> #4 0xc01ed16c in idle_proc (dummy=0x0) at ../../../kern/kern_idle.c:114
> #5 0xc01ecea0 in fork_exit (callout=0xc01ed130 <idle_proc>, arg=0x0,
> frame=0x0) at ../../../kern/kern_fork.c:792
>
> i.e, the cpu_idle() frame now appears instead of Xintr14().
This is no better, since it loses Xintr14()'s frame instead of cpu_idle()'s
frame.
OTOH, it wouldnt hurt in most cases to lose all the frames below
cpu_idle() and above idle_proc(), since they are not really associated
with the process.
Bruce
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20030519161526.T22357>