naveen yadav <yad.naveen@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > 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) Looking at the code, it's perfectly obvious that gdb is reporting the arguments to sweep incorrectly. The sweep function takes three arugments: thisGen, base, and top. It is called only from CVMgenMarkCompactCollect, and that function takes four arguments, gen, ee, numBytes, and gcOpts. Clearly the parameters to sweep are being reported incorrectly. I don't think you really needed me to tell you that. I don't know where the bug is, but my guess would be that gcc 4.4.1 is not generating correct debug info for inlined functions. Ian > > ...... > > 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 >>
