From: Chris S. <ir0...@gm...> - 2010-01-07 15:00:44
|
I've uploaded 32- and 64-bit native builds of GDB for mingw-w64 built from the vanilla GNU GDB 7.0.1 sources: 32-bit: http://sourceforge.net/projects/mingw-w64/files/External%20binary%20packages%20%28Win64%20hosted%29/gdb/i686-w64-mingw32-gdb-7.0.1-4.tar.bz2/download 64-bit: http://sourceforge.net/projects/mingw-w64/files/External%20binary%20packages%20%28Win64%20hosted%29/gdb/x86_64-w64-mingw32-gdb-7.0.1.tar.bz2/download Please report any issues to this mailing list. Enjoy! Chris -- Chris Sutcliffe http://emergedesktop.org |
From: JonY <jo...@us...> - 2010-01-07 15:29:22
|
On 1/7/2010 23:00, Chris Sutcliffe wrote: > I've uploaded 32- and 64-bit native builds of GDB for mingw-w64 built > from the vanilla GNU GDB 7.0.1 sources: > > 32-bit: http://sourceforge.net/projects/mingw-w64/files/External%20binary%20packages%20%28Win64%20hosted%29/gdb/i686-w64-mingw32-gdb-7.0.1-4.tar.bz2/download > 64-bit: http://sourceforge.net/projects/mingw-w64/files/External%20binary%20packages%20%28Win64%20hosted%29/gdb/x86_64-w64-mingw32-gdb-7.0.1.tar.bz2/download > > Please report any issues to this mailing list. > > Enjoy! > > Chris > Hi, good job pushing out new releases. By the way, are these built with expat and PDCurses? |
From: <t6...@gm...> - 2010-01-07 23:15:37
|
Chris Sutcliffe wrote: > I've uploaded 32- and 64-bit native builds of GDB for mingw-w64 built > from the vanilla GNU GDB 7.0.1 sources: > > 32-bit: http://sourceforge.net/projects/mingw-w64/files/External%20binary%20packages%20%28Win64%20hosted%29/gdb/i686-w64-mingw32-gdb-7.0.1-4.tar.bz2/download > 64-bit: http://sourceforge.net/projects/mingw-w64/files/External%20binary%20packages%20%28Win64%20hosted%29/gdb/x86_64-w64-mingw32-gdb-7.0.1.tar.bz2/download > > Please report any issues to this mailing list. > > Enjoy! > > Chris > > Thank you, Finally I am able to debug my 64-bits binary. |
From: <t6...@gm...> - 2010-01-07 23:47:37
|
t6...@gm... wrote: > Chris Sutcliffe wrote: >> I've uploaded 32- and 64-bit native builds of GDB for mingw-w64 built >> from the vanilla GNU GDB 7.0.1 sources: >> >> 32-bit: >> http://sourceforge.net/projects/mingw-w64/files/External%20binary%20packages%20%28Win64%20hosted%29/gdb/i686-w64-mingw32-gdb-7.0.1-4.tar.bz2/download >> >> 64-bit: >> http://sourceforge.net/projects/mingw-w64/files/External%20binary%20packages%20%28Win64%20hosted%29/gdb/x86_64-w64-mingw32-gdb-7.0.1.tar.bz2/download >> >> >> Please report any issues to this mailing list. warning: (Internal error: pc 0xa263bff in read in psymtab, but not in symtab.) is this normal? >> >> Enjoy! >> >> Chris >> >> > Thank you, Finally I am able to debug my 64-bits binary. > > |
From: Chris S. <ir0...@gm...> - 2010-01-08 11:56:20
|
>> Previously using GNU gdb 6.8 >> There were no such annoying warnings. > > Correct, there have been several posts about this on the GDB mailing > list. AFAIK, it has something do with the pretty printers that were > introduced in 7.x. I've sent an email to the GDB mailing list to see > if there is a way to suppress these warnings and will let you know > what the response is. I've heard back on the GDB mailing list already and they would like a simple test case that exhibits this behaviour. I haven't been able to recreate this behaviour, so t66667, would it be possible for you to provide a simple test case that demonstrates this behaviour that I can send to them? Thank you, Chris -- Chris Sutcliffe http://emergedesktop.org |
From: <t6...@gm...> - 2010-01-08 01:02:37
|
Chris Sutcliffe wrote: >> warning: (Internal error: pc 0xa263bff in read in psymtab, but not in >> symtab.) >> is this normal? >> > > Yes, if you do a Google for it, you'll get an explanation. > > Chris > > Previously using GNU gdb 6.8 There were no such annoying warnings. |
From: Chris S. <ir0...@gm...> - 2010-01-08 11:44:26
|
>> Yes, if you do a Google for it, you'll get an explanation. >> > Previously using GNU gdb 6.8 > There were no such annoying warnings. Correct, there have been several posts about this on the GDB mailing list. AFAIK, it has something do with the pretty printers that were introduced in 7.x. I've sent an email to the GDB mailing list to see if there is a way to suppress these warnings and will let you know what the response is. Chris -- Chris Sutcliffe http://emergedesktop.org |
From: <t6...@gm...> - 2010-01-08 14:11:05
|
Chris Sutcliffe wrote: >>> Previously using GNU gdb 6.8 >>> There were no such annoying warnings. >>> >> Correct, there have been several posts about this on the GDB mailing >> list. AFAIK, it has something do with the pretty printers that were >> introduced in 7.x. I've sent an email to the GDB mailing list to see >> if there is a way to suppress these warnings and will let you know >> what the response is. >> > > I've heard back on the GDB mailing list already and they would like a > simple test case that exhibits this behaviour. I haven't been able to > recreate this behaviour, so t66667, would it be possible for you to > provide a simple test case that demonstrates this behaviour that I can > send to them? > > Sorry I don't but my compiler is pretty customized I guess it have something to do with that. Its a multi-lib patched gcc-4_4-branch a cross compiler, don't know if it something to do with the config option --with-stabs ? But how come you havent been able to encounter the problem, I downloaded both 32/64 bits gdb binary you released and both show the same behavior. > Thank you, > > Chris > > |
From: Kai T. <Kai...@on...> - 2010-01-08 14:17:48
|
"t6...@gm..." <t6...@gm...> wrote on 08.01.2010 15:10:30: > Chris Sutcliffe wrote: > >>> Previously using GNU gdb 6.8 > >>> There were no such annoying warnings. > >>> > >> Correct, there have been several posts about this on the GDB mailing > >> list. AFAIK, it has something do with the pretty printers that were > >> introduced in 7.x. I've sent an email to the GDB mailing list to see > >> if there is a way to suppress these warnings and will let you know > >> what the response is. > >> > > > > I've heard back on the GDB mailing list already and they would like a > > simple test case that exhibits this behaviour. I haven't been able to > > recreate this behaviour, so t66667, would it be possible for you to > > provide a simple test case that demonstrates this behaviour that I can > > send to them? > > > > > Sorry I don't but my compiler is pretty customized I guess it have > something to do with that. > Its a multi-lib patched gcc-4_4-branch a cross compiler, don't know if > it something to do with the config option --with-stabs ? > But how come you havent been able to encounter the problem, I downloaded > both 32/64 bits gdb binary you released and both show the same behavior. > > > Thank you, > > > > Chris > > > > Hello all, yes this bug I encounter some time ago, too. It is related to DLL files not having any debugging information but are shown in backtrace. Here it warns once about psymtab != symtab and code in gdb fix it afterwards. IMHO this warning is simply pretty bogus here, or the DLL loader should generate for pe-coff the symtab, too. Cheers, Kai | (\_/) This is Bunny. Copy and paste Bunny | (='.'=) into your signature to help him gain | (")_(") world domination. |
From: <t6...@gm...> - 2010-01-08 14:51:23
|
> yes this bug I encounter some time ago, too. It is related to DLL files > not having any debugging information but are shown in backtrace. Here it > warns once about psymtab != symtab and code in gdb fix it afterwards. IMHO > this warning is simply pretty bogus here, or the DLL loader should > generate for pe-coff the symtab, too. > > Maybe this warning should be permanently switched off until it is useful again. The dlls have been separated symbols. Is this the main reason why ? > Cheers, > Kai > > | (\_/) This is Bunny. Copy and paste Bunny > | (='.'=) into your signature to help him gain > | (")_(") world domination. > > > |
From: Chris S. <ir0...@gm...> - 2010-01-08 15:13:35
|
Hi Kai, > yes this bug I encounter some time ago, too. It is related to DLL files > not having any debugging information but are shown in backtrace. Here it > warns once about psymtab != symtab and code in gdb fix it afterwards. IMHO > this warning is simply pretty bogus here, or the DLL loader should > generate for pe-coff the symtab, too. Do you mind if I share your findings on the GDB mailing list so as to help Tristan Gingold track down what's causing these spurious warnings to pop-up? Chris -- Chris Sutcliffe http://emergedesktop.org |
From: Kai T. <kti...@go...> - 2010-01-08 15:23:59
|
2010/1/8 Chris Sutcliffe <ir0...@gm...>: > Hi Kai, > >> yes this bug I encounter some time ago, too. It is related to DLL files >> not having any debugging information but are shown in backtrace. Here it >> warns once about psymtab != symtab and code in gdb fix it afterwards. IMHO >> this warning is simply pretty bogus here, or the DLL loader should >> generate for pe-coff the symtab, too. > > Do you mind if I share your findings on the GDB mailing list so as to > help Tristan Gingold track down what's causing these spurious warnings > to pop-up? > > Chris Of course. You can quote me on gdb's ML. Cheers, Kai -- | (\_/) This is Bunny. Copy and paste | (='.'=) Bunny into your signature to help | (")_(") him gain world domination |
From: Chris S. <ir0...@gm...> - 2010-01-08 19:22:13
|
> Sorry I don't but my compiler is pretty customized I guess it have > something to do with that. > Its a multi-lib patched gcc-4_4-branch a cross compiler, don't know if > it something to do with the config option --with-stabs ? > But how come you havent been able to encounter the problem, I downloaded > both 32/64 bits gdb binary you released and both show the same behavior. Following up on the GDB mailing list, they would prefer an actual sample which displays the error (Kai's explanation didn't provide enough guidance). Is the code you are working on that displays the issue public domain? Would it be possible for you to share it so I can work with the GDB developers to solve the issue? I've tried creating a simple test case using what Kai had mentioned about debugging an app that links to a DLL without debugging symbols and hitting a backtrace, but I have yet to recreate the issue. Thank you, Chris -- Chris Sutcliffe http://emergedesktop.org |
From: <t6...@gm...> - 2010-01-08 23:59:47
|
Chris Sutcliffe wrote: >> Sorry I don't but my compiler is pretty customized I guess it have >> something to do with that. >> Its a multi-lib patched gcc-4_4-branch a cross compiler, don't know if >> it something to do with the config option --with-stabs ? >> But how come you havent been able to encounter the problem, I downloaded >> both 32/64 bits gdb binary you released and both show the same behavior. >> > > Following up on the GDB mailing list, they would prefer an actual > sample which displays the error (Kai's explanation didn't provide > enough guidance). Is the code you are working on that displays the > issue public domain? Would it be possible for you to share it so I > can work with the GDB developers to solve the issue? > > I've tried creating a simple test case using what Kai had mentioned > about debugging an app that links to a DLL without debugging symbols > and hitting a backtrace, but I have yet to recreate the issue. > > Thank you, > > Chris > > Can you post the simple test case I will try it here and see if same thing will happen ? I have found out actually if it was stripped then the warnings won't show up so obviously it's the debugging symbols causing this issue. Also previously it was not possible to debug 64bits binary using GDB until this release. Tried gdb_20091224.tar.gz also was impossible to get any debugging info out. |
From: Ozkan S. <se...@gm...> - 2010-01-09 07:50:02
|
> Also previously it was not possible to debug 64bits binary using GDB > until this release. > Tried gdb_20091224.tar.gz also was impossible to get any debugging info out. > It was built from gdb CVS HEAD (their development version) and yes the gdb.exe was stripped. Maybe the development version broke at some point, you had better try and report- discuss your experience to their developers. -- Ozkan |
From: <t6...@gm...> - 2010-01-09 10:37:02
|
Ozkan Sezer wrote: >> Also previously it was not possible to debug 64bits binary using GDB >> until this release. >> Tried gdb_20091224.tar.gz also was impossible to get any debugging info out. >> I mean previous gdb were somewhat broken and unable to debug app that crashed and got empty backtrace. >> > > It was built from gdb CVS HEAD (their development version) > and yes the gdb.exe was stripped. Maybe the development > version broke at some point, you had better try and report- > discuss your experience to their developers. > However I am sure I'm not the only one encountering this issue. Perhaps I should build my own GDB binary instead, so I have more understanding of what is going on. > -- > Ozkan > > |
From: <t6...@gm...> - 2010-01-09 21:35:55
|
> However I am sure I'm not the only one encountering this issue. > Perhaps I should build my own GDB binary instead, so I have more > understanding of what is going on. I built myself a gdb-7.0.1 release and it still output the warnings |
From: Chris S. <ir0...@gm...> - 2010-01-09 23:14:02
|
>> However I am sure I'm not the only one encountering this issue. >> Perhaps I should build my own GDB binary instead, so I have more >> understanding of what is going on. > > I built myself a gdb-7.0.1 release and it still output the warnings There is a report on the GDB mailing list with someone experiencing the same issue using RedHat, so it seems to be a bug in GDB itself. I'm still trying to recreate the issue with a simple test case, and have yet to do so. Chris -- Chris Sutcliffe http://emergedesktop.org |