| To: | Steven Dake <sdake@xxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: Backtraces with interrupts or signals seem unreliable, anyone else seen this? |
| From: | Keith Owens <kaos@xxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Wed, 11 Jun 2003 12:25:37 +1000 |
| Cc: | kdb@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | Your message of "Tue, 10 Jun 2003 16:08:13 MST." <3EE664DD.30604@mvista.com> |
| Sender: | kdb-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
On Tue, 10 Jun 2003 16:08:13 -0700, Steven Dake <sdake@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >It seems when an interrupt or signal occurs, which results in an >exception frame (with frame pointers on), KDB has trouble decoding that >frame properly when using the backtrace functionality. If I get past >the exception frame, the rest of the backtrace looks fine. > >Has anyone seen this behavior? I am using KDB 4.1. Which architecture? Every arch has different ways of decoding the frames. |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: Backtraces with interrupts or signals seem unreliable, anyone else seen this?, Keith Owens |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: Backtraces with interrupts or signals seem unreliable, anyone else seen this?, Thomas Duffy |
| Previous by Thread: | Backtraces with interrupts or signals seem unreliable, anyone else seen this?, Steven Dake |
| Next by Thread: | Re: Backtraces with interrupts or signals seem unreliable, anyone else seen this?, Steven Dake |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |