Hi Ian, My GCC version 4.4.1. and here is source code. http://gingacdn.lavid.ufpb.br/projects/ginga-j/repository/revisions/7e233c1906624b0e01698415987aada3fd8c3fe4/entry/gingaj/jvm/src/share/javavm/runtime/gc/generational/gen_markcompact.c and here is backtrace. mips-gdb> bt sweep (gen=0x5d5f508, ee=0x5c4300d0, numBytes=4294967295, gcOpts=0x5c3408f8) #1 CVMgenMarkCompactCollect (gen=0x5d5f508, ee=0x5c4300d0, numBytes=4294967295, gcOpts=0x5c3408f8) ...... If you need more detail pls let me know.. Thanks. On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 10:01 PM, Ian Lance Taylor <iant@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > naveen yadav <yad.naveen@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > >> I am running one application and it generate core dump. When I run bt . >> (gdb) bt >> #0 sweep (gn=0x5d5f58, ef=0x5c43000, Bytes=429496729, gcOs=0x5c3408f) >> #1 CompactCollect (gn=0x5d5f58, ef=0x5c43000, Bytes=429496729, gcOs=0x5c3408f) >> ... >> >> In above case >> we got crash in wepp(). >> CompactCollect () is main function and wepp() is another function >> which got called from CompactCollect (). >> >> When I check the assembly wepp() become inline. >> So i got bit surprise when i check that function parameter;s for both >> wepp() and CompactCollect () are same. >> >> So is it correct behaviour ? that calling and calle have same parameter > > Without any information about the source code, I don't see how we can > tell whether having the same parameters is correct behaviour or not. > > That said, it is certainly possible that the arguments of the inlined > function are not being displayed correctly. Mainline gcc has gotten > quite a bit better about debug info for inlined functions and in general > for avoiding incorrect display of variables in optimized code. > > Ian >
