Sign Up

Sign Up to our social questions and Answers Engine to ask questions, answer people’s questions, and connect with other people.

Have an account? Sign In

Have an account? Sign In Now

Sign In

Login to our social questions & Answers Engine to ask questions answer people’s questions & connect with other people.

Sign Up Here

Forgot Password?

Don't have account, Sign Up Here

Forgot Password

Lost your password? Please enter your email address. You will receive a link and will create a new password via email.

Have an account? Sign In Now

You must login to ask a question.

Forgot Password?

Need An Account, Sign Up Here

Please briefly explain why you feel this question should be reported.

Please briefly explain why you feel this answer should be reported.

Please briefly explain why you feel this user should be reported.

Sign InSign Up

The Archive Base

The Archive Base Logo The Archive Base Logo

The Archive Base Navigation

  • Home
  • SEARCH
  • About Us
  • Blog
  • Contact Us
Search
Ask A Question

Mobile menu

Close
Ask a Question
  • Home
  • Add group
  • Groups page
  • Feed
  • User Profile
  • Communities
  • Questions
    • New Questions
    • Trending Questions
    • Must read Questions
    • Hot Questions
  • Polls
  • Tags
  • Badges
  • Buy Points
  • Users
  • Help
  • Buy Theme
  • SEARCH
Home/ Questions/Q 3238778
In Process

The Archive Base Latest Questions

Editorial Team
  • 0
Editorial Team
Asked: May 17, 20262026-05-17T17:53:35+00:00 2026-05-17T17:53:35+00:00

I am debugging a process with multiple threads in GDB. I compiled the sole

  • 0

I am debugging a process with multiple threads in GDB. I compiled the sole source file with the -g flag. However, while running in GDB, the following scenario occurs:

Program received signal SIGSEGV, Segmentation fault.
[Switching to Thread 0xb7fe2b70 (LWP 2604)]
0x00000011 in ?? ()

Prior to the switch, the particular thread executes a sleep(5);

Why can’t GDB identify the point from which the code “segfaulted”?

  • 1 1 Answer
  • 0 Views
  • 0 Followers
  • 0
Share
  • Facebook
  • Report

Leave an answer
Cancel reply

You must login to add an answer.

Forgot Password?

Need An Account, Sign Up Here

1 Answer

  • Voted
  • Oldest
  • Recent
  • Random
  1. Editorial Team
    Editorial Team
    2026-05-17T17:53:36+00:00Added an answer on May 17, 2026 at 5:53 pm

    0x00000011 is not a valid address, especially not for code. This tells us, that there is no code (thus no function) at 0x00000011. And this tells us, that your stack is corrupted.
    Without a “working” stack, gdb is unable to figure out how your thread ended up where is has, because it does not log any calls by default and hence relies solely on the stack.

    EDIT
    Note that on x86 you will end up with similar behavior as you’ve described by code like

    _start:
       mov eax,0x11
       jmp eax
    

    This leads to a jump/branch to a region (0x11) where there’s no code and consequently no debugging symbols neither. This might happen in a case like in my example, but also if the stack is overridden (corrupted) and the returning jump leads to an invalid address (like 0x11)

    • 0
    • Reply
    • Share
      Share
      • Share on Facebook
      • Share on Twitter
      • Share on LinkedIn
      • Share on WhatsApp
      • Report

Sidebar

Related Questions

No related questions found

Explore

  • Home
  • Add group
  • Groups page
  • Communities
  • Questions
    • New Questions
    • Trending Questions
    • Must read Questions
    • Hot Questions
  • Polls
  • Tags
  • Badges
  • Users
  • Help
  • SEARCH

Footer

© 2021 The Archive Base. All Rights Reserved
With Love by The Archive Base

Insert/edit link

Enter the destination URL

Or link to existing content

    No search term specified. Showing recent items. Search or use up and down arrow keys to select an item.