on 27/08/2012 17:48 Luca Pizzamiglio said the following: > I'm waiting someone commit this: > > ports/171109
Great, thanks! > On Mon, Aug 27, 2012 at 4:44 PM, Andriy Gapon <a...@freebsd.org> wrote: >> on 27/08/2012 17:03 Andriy Gapon said the following: >>> Program terminated with signal 11, Segmentation fault >>> ... >>> #0 0x00000000004777e2 in i386_use_watchpoints () >>> #1 0x0000000000476bbd in _initialize_amd64fbsd_nat () >>> #2 0x000000000060deea in initialize_all_files () >>> #3 0x00000000005e710f in gdb_init () >>> #4 0x0000000000549086 in relocate_gdb_directory () >>> #5 0x0000000000547aa4 in catch_errors () >>> #6 0x0000000000548bb4 in gdb_main () >>> #7 0x0000000000457ea9 in main () >>> >>> This is on amd64 head. >>> >> >> The problem seems to be caused by files/patch-gdb-amd64-nat.h, which for some >> cryptic reason removes prototype of amd64bsd_target() from amd64-nat.h. That >> allows the code to be compilable still (sloppy gdb developers!) but the >> assumed >> return type of the function becomes int instead of a pointer which it really >> is. >> Thus, the returned pointer value gets truncated on amd64 and as a result an >> invalid pointer is passed to i386_use_watchpoints() from >> _initialize_amd64fbsd_nat(). >> >> Oh, looking at the patch in PR ports/165357 >> (http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=165357), it seems that >> amd64bsd_target() should have re-appeared in a new header file >> "amd64bsd-nat.h"... >> But that part of the patch seems to be incorrect in that it would create >> files/amd64bsd-nat.h instead of a patch file to create amd64bsd-nat.h in the >> source directory. Apparently this file never made it as a result. >> >> -- >> Andriy Gapon -- Andriy Gapon _______________________________________________ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
