This is even worse:
sometimes this cannot analyse real updated stack without interrupt. Have no
idea why.
I wrote my thoughts about new version. So, if anybody want -- welcome.
I currently hell busy and cannot write any usefull code :)
May be next month or so...
~d
On Wednesday 21 May 2003 16:55, Steve Hosgood wrote:
> I wrote:
> > I'm using the 3.0.4 compiler and the 5.1.1 gdb (yeah, I know!). The "bt"
> > command normally works fine whenever the machine had been running
> > normally. However, the stack trace is quite useless if it had been
> > servicing an interrupt. It would be *so* useful to know what background
> > task had been running (and where) at the point the interrupt happened.
>
> Actually, it's worse than I'd thought. If your breakpoint (or whatever)
> went off in a subroutine called by an interrupt routine, the "bt" command
> only mentions the subroutine in its stack dump. The interrupt routine
> itself (and whatever was going on below that) isn't mentioned.
>
> For instance:
> (gdb) bt
> #0 0x00003616 in do_dac_irq () at hw_dac_adc.c:160
> #1 0x00000004 in ?? ()
> #2 0x00000004 in ?? ()
> #3 0x00000004 in ?? ()
> #4 0x00000004 in ?? ()
> #5 0x00000004 in ?? ()
> #6 0x00000004 in ?? ()
>
> This broken dump loops like this for ever unless you hit 'q' to break out.
> Seems strange that "bt" can't see at least as far as the interrupt routine
> itself though.
--
/********************************************************************
("`-''-/").___..--''"`-._ (\ Dimmy the Wild UA1ACZ
`6_ 6 ) `-. ( ).`-.__.`) Enterprise Information Sys
(_Y_.)' ._ ) `._ `. ``-..-' Nevsky prospekt, 20 / 44
_..`--'_..-_/ /--'_.' ,' Saint Petersburg, Russia
(il),-'' (li),' ((!.-' +7 (812) 3468202, 5585314
********************************************************************/
