Mail Archives: cygwin-developers/2001/09/04/23:40:11
[Note that I've renamed the subject]
On Tue, Sep 04, 2001 at 11:16:00PM -0400, Charles Wilson wrote:
>Christopher Faylor wrote:
>>On Tue, Sep 04, 2001 at 10:21:35PM -0400, Charles Wilson wrote:
>>>Okay, after making a little batch file and pointing error_start at that,
>>>I can get gdb -nw to start up with state information.
>>>
>>>First, I get many many many "Program received signal SIGSEGV,
>>>Segmentation fault." messages. Eventually, I just hit q<RET> to get
>>>past those messages.
>>>
>>
>>Yes, this is standard. It was the best way I could find to have gdb
>>point at useful info when it attaches to the target. Hitting 'q' is
>>the correct response.
>
>
>Well, at least I can make a few correct decisions...when they're
>obvious. :-)
Actually, I don't think that was really obvious. I can't believe that
you are the first person that I can recall who's asked about this,
actually. I expected a couple percentage point increase in
cygwin AT cygwin email when I implemented it.
At least this way you're stopped at the offending line, though, which wasn't
the case before.
>>>...child thread 544.0x2dc
>>>
>>>
>>>#0 0x00410732 in exec_command (argv=0x5, envp=0xa01ca70)
>>> at /usr/src/make/src/job.c:2317
>>>#1 0x61081e8a in read () at
>>>/usr/src/cygwin/cygwin/winsup/cygwin/uinfo.cc:284
>>>#2 0x0040a5cb in func_shell (o=0xa01cd98 "", argv=0x22d52c,
>>>
>>
>>I don't understand this. This backtrace is saying that read() is in
>>uinfo.cc at line 284. That's clearly incorrect. It sounds like the
>>symbol table in cygwin1.dll is screwed up.
>
>
>Oh good. When I looked at this bt, I couldn't make any sense of it; but
>I just assumed I was stupid. I'm glad *that's* not the explanation.
>(my self-assessment may still be true, but at least this backtrace isn't
>proof. :-> )
Nope. It looks like a signal screw up (as I said in private email). I
don't understand it, of course.
>>Something is calling exec_command with an argv of 5, though.
>>That's what is causing this problem.
>>
>>Judging by the stack trace, it sounds like the make received a signal and
>>then maybe something scribbled on the stack.
>>
>>Either that or gdb is confused.
>>
>>I can't think of any way to debug this further right now.
>
>
>I'm sorry to contribute to your depression. (c.f. earlier message
>"discouraged")
Yeah, right. I know you secretly enjoy this. I can just imagine you
sitting at your computer chortling about finding another bug:
"Just one more strange bug and I'll drive him over the edge."
You and Earnie are double teaming me.
This is actually a pretty stressful time, job wise, though,
unfortunately.
cgf
- Raw text -