[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
GDB 5.2 Line number out of range error
- Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2003 07:14:39 +1000
- From: derick at perkinstechnologies.com.au (Derick Hammond)
- Subject: GDB 5.2 Line number out of range error
I checked with addr2line, and it also comes up with the ridiculous line
number, so I guess the problem is not with gdb :-)
Also something that I find interesting is that it only seems to effect the
bsp_cleanup routine. Other addresses for functions work fine, so far it is
only bsp_cleanup that exhibits this behavior.
When compiling the tests the Makefile is using -g option for debugging.
Today, I am going to roll everything back to RTEMS snapshot 20021118, just
to make sure I am not going crazy, and verify that this problem has only
crept in since I have tried upgrading to RTEMS 4.6.0pre1.
At 11:39 AM 19/03/2003 -0800, Aaron J. Grier wrote:
>On Wed, Mar 19, 2003 at 07:19:21AM +1000, Derick Hammond wrote:
> > Hi Aaron:
> > I have done the following to recompiled gcc. Using the
> > m68k-rtems-gcc-3.2.1-newlib-1.11.0.spec file as a basis I compiled my own
> > RPMS:
> > rtems-base-gcc-gcc3.2.2newlib1.11.0-P1.i386.rpm
> > m68k-rtems-gcc-gcc3.2.2newlib1.11.0-P1.i386.rpm
> > The only difference in the rpm .spec file is that I use gcc-3.2.2 source
> > unpatched, as opposed to gcc-3.2.1 source patched with
> > gcc-3.2.1-rtems-20021209.diff.
> > Question for the RTEMS Maintainers: Are there any patches required for
> > m68k/Coldfire targets when using gcc-3.2.2? I saw one in the last
> > couple of days, but I thought it was specific to the i386-rtems
> > toolchain.
>mmm... I have heard rumors that 3.2.2 should be avoided. Joel and Ralf
>will know for sure.
>I personally use the gcc-3_2-branch via CVS, but I don't know how to
>nicely package that via RPM.
> > Anyway, I installed these packages and I am still getting the same
> > "Line number out of range error" when setting a breakpoint on
> > bsp_cleanup.
>I'm quickly running out of ideas... :P
> > Question for Chris John: Could this problem be caused by patching
> > gdb-5.2 with the gdb-5.2.1.patch?
>does addr2line (built as part of binutils) produce the same rediculous
>line number? if it looks sane, the problem would appear to be with gdb.
> > If you require any more information, please don't hesitate to ask.
>what debugging flags are you using when compiling? (IE -g, -gstabs,
> Aaron J. Grier | Frye Electronics, Tigard, OR | aaron at frye.com