naveen yadav <yad.naveen@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > So I just request is there any patch available to fix this problem ? I don't know. As I said earlier, current versions of gcc are much better at debugging info for inlined functions, and are much better at not incorrectly reporting variable values for optimized code. However, I have no idea whether that will help with this specific problem. Ian > On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 12:20 PM, Ian Lance Taylor <iant@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> 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 >>>> >>
