From owner-freebsd-ia64@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Nov 24 13:50:03 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ia64@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9E13116A4CE; Mon, 24 Nov 2003 13:50:03 -0800 (PST) Received: from ns1.xcllnt.net (209-128-86-226.bayarea.net [209.128.86.226]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 785DF43FB1; Mon, 24 Nov 2003 13:50:02 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from marcel@xcllnt.net) Received: from ns1.xcllnt.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ns1.xcllnt.net (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id hAOLo2EG031134; Mon, 24 Nov 2003 13:50:02 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from marcel@ns1.xcllnt.net) Received: (from marcel@localhost) by ns1.xcllnt.net (8.12.9/8.12.9/Submit) id hAOLo2cD031133; Mon, 24 Nov 2003 13:50:02 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from marcel) Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2003 13:50:02 -0800 From: Marcel Moolenaar To: Tilman Linneweh Message-ID: <20031124215002.GB30888@ns1.xcllnt.net> References: <1069691822.34682.7.camel@tl.kom.tuwien.ac.at> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1069691822.34682.7.camel@tl.kom.tuwien.ac.at> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.4i cc: freebsd-ia64@freebsd.org Subject: Re: top: Arithmetic exception X-BeenThere: freebsd-ia64@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting FreeBSD to the IA-64 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2003 21:50:03 -0000 On Mon, Nov 24, 2003 at 05:37:02PM +0100, Tilman Linneweh wrote: > Hi, > > While watching some processes on pluto2 top dumped core. > Dunno, if this is a known problem: I know about it. I haven't tried to analyze it. If you notice that top dumps core with a FP exception, wait a while (couple of minutes) and it should be gone again. As for trying to get a backtrace: I noticed that when there's no debug information available or when no debug information had to be created by the compiler, the debugger gets confused. This is due to the kludgy way the debugger scans function prologues to get return addresses and previous stack pointers and the like (at least that's what I think is going wrong). I'm working on that... -- Marcel Moolenaar USPA: A-39004 marcel@xcllnt.net