Re: Reporting the STATUS_INVALID_UNWIND_TARGET fatal error
Pedro Alves <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.gdb.devel |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On 10/07/2014 06:26 PM, Eli Zaretskii wrote: >> Date: Tue, 07 Oct 2014 18:01:47 +0100 >> From: Pedro Alves <[email protected]> >> >> On 09/30/2014 06:54 PM, Eli Zaretskii wrote: >>> In the native MinGW build of GDB, we currently do not interpret >>> STATUS_INVALID_UNWIND_TARGET, neither as a Posix-style signal nor as a >>> Windows exception (under debugexceptions). As result, GDB says >>> something like >>> >>> gdb: unknown target exception 0xc0000029 at 0x7c9502cc >>> >>> Would it make sense to report this as SIGSEGV instead? >> >> Doesn't sound like segmentation fault, but rather the >> runtime detecting some corruption. > > But stack-related trouble, like stack overflows, are reported as > segfaults, right? Only if they really cause a segmentation fault. Reusing the stack of another thread would not, as that stack would be mapped in to the process. > >> Like, e.g., glibc's malloc/free detecting a heap corruption and >> printing about that. > > It's not a case of corruption. Nothing is wrong with the stack per > se. In addition, it's a true exception, not a debugging feature > provided by some library. So I think it's different. > >>> This happens, e.g., when a thread tries to longjmp using stack >>> information recorded by a different thread. What will GDB report in >>> such a case on GNU/Linux or other Posix platforms? >> >> I think nothing. > > Could you or someone else try? > >> In absence of a more specific signal, I think SIGTRAP is the >> best match, for being a "debugger" signal. This has the advantage >> that SIGTRAP is not passed to the program by default, so a plain >> "continue" should suppress the exception, while "signal SIGTRAP" >> will pass it to the program (which I guess will usually terminate >> the application). > > You cannot continue from this exception, not on Windows anyway. Your > program dies. > >> Though overall, I think it'd be better if we added a new >> "target exception" waitkind or some such, and stopped trying >> to masquerade Windows exceptions as Unix signals. > > What would it take to do something like that? I'd try adding a new TARGET_WAITKIND_EXCEPTION, and have windows-nat.c report that, putting the exception number in waitstatus.value.integer. In handle_inferior_event, you'd handle it probably similarly to TARGET_WAITKIND_NO_HISTORY, by reporting the exception and causing a stop. To interpret the exception number, and say, convert it to a printable string, you'd add a new gdbarch hook, that'd be implemented in windows-tdep.c. To make the contents of the whole exception object available to GDB and the user, I'd try adding a new convenience variable, similar to $_siginfo or $_tlb. See windows-tdep.c for the latter. Thanks, Pedro Alves