This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
RE: [patch v8 21/24] record-btrace: extend unwinder
- From: "Metzger, Markus T" <markus dot t dot metzger at intel dot com>
- To: Pedro Alves <palves at redhat dot com>
- Cc: "jan dot kratochvil at redhat dot com" <jan dot kratochvil at redhat dot com>, "gdb-patches at sourceware dot org" <gdb-patches at sourceware dot org>
- Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2013 12:56:26 +0000
- Subject: RE: [patch v8 21/24] record-btrace: extend unwinder
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <1386839747-8860-1-git-send-email-markus dot t dot metzger at intel dot com> <1386839747-8860-22-git-send-email-markus dot t dot metzger at intel dot com> <52AB63BB dot 30206 at redhat dot com> <A78C989F6D9628469189715575E55B230AA38CD0 at IRSMSX104 dot ger dot corp dot intel dot com> <52AF5302 dot 4010308 at redhat dot com>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org [mailto:gdb-patches-
> owner@sourceware.org] On Behalf Of Pedro Alves
> Sent: Monday, December 16, 2013 8:23 PM
> >>> @@ -222,7 +222,11 @@ enum frame_type
> >>> ARCH_FRAME,
> >>> /* Sentinel or registers frame. This frame obtains register values
> >>> direct from the inferior's registers. */
> >>> - SENTINEL_FRAME
> >>> + SENTINEL_FRAME,
> >>> + /* A branch tracing frame. */
> >>> + BTRACE_FRAME,
> >>> + /* A branch tracing tail call frame. */
> >>> + BTRACE_TAILCALL_FRAME
> >>> };
> >>
> >> Hmm? Why were these needed? Missing patch rationale... And missing
> >> comments, I suppose.
> >
> > The alternative would be to pretend that they are NORMAL_FRAME
> > and TAILCALL_FRAME, respectively. I thought it cleaner to add a new
> > frame type. Those frames don't have available stack.
> >
> > Do you want me to use NORMAL_FRAME and TAILCALL_FRAME, instead?
>
> If they behave example like those, then yes. I wouldn't call
> it "pretend" then. This is IMO just like we don't have other
> frames types for the many different implementations of
> NORMAL_FRAMEs or SIGTRAP_FRAME unwinders, etc., and likewise for
> when inspecting tracepoint traceframes with unavailable stack.
> IOW, is there any place in the common code that needs to
> distinguish NORMAL_FRAME vs BTRACE_FRAME and TAILCALL_FRAME
> vs BTRACE_TAILCALL_FRAME?
They behave the same. I'll remove the new frame types.
Markus.
Intel GmbH
Dornacher Strasse 1
85622 Feldkirchen/Muenchen, Deutschland
Sitz der Gesellschaft: Feldkirchen bei Muenchen
Geschaeftsfuehrer: Christian Lamprechter, Hannes Schwaderer, Douglas Lusk
Registergericht: Muenchen HRB 47456
Ust.-IdNr./VAT Registration No.: DE129385895
Citibank Frankfurt a.M. (BLZ 502 109 00) 600119052