This is the mail archive of the gdb-patches@sourceware.org mailing list for the GDB project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: [PATCH] Fix problems with finishing a dummy function call on simulators.


On 07/06/2015 01:15 PM, Pedro Alves wrote:
On 07/06/2015 04:33 PM, Luis Machado wrote:

I'll take a look at it. I suppose this will block the branching?

I think so, or at least the release.  Broken infcalls seems
pretty nasty.


Indeed.

Then again, simply reverting this will still have bad results with some
simulators.

True.  Might be the fix is simple though.  I'm seeing this:

(gdb) PASS: gdb.base/shlib-call.exp: step out of shr2 to main (stopped in shr2 epilogue)
step
main () at /home/pedro/gdb/mygit/build/../src/gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/shmain.c:37
37        g = mainshr1(g);
(gdb) PASS: gdb.base/shlib-call.exp: step out of shr2 epilogue to main
print mainshr1(1)

Program received signal SIGSEGV, Segmentation fault.
mainshr1 (g=1) at /home/pedro/gdb/mygit/build/../src/gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/shmain.c:29
29      }
The program being debugged was signaled while in a function called from GDB.
GDB remains in the frame where the signal was received.
To change this behavior use "set unwindonsignal on".
Evaluation of the expression containing the function
(mainshr1) will be abandoned.
When the function is done executing, GDB will silently stop.
(gdb) FAIL: gdb.base/shlib-call.exp: print mainshr1(1)
step


That's what i see too.

The SIGSEGV look scary until one remembers that the dummy breakpoints
are placed on the stack, which is non-executable.  gdb translates those
SIGSEGVs back to SIGTRAPs, provided it knows there's a breakpoint at that
address.

Looking a bit at breakpoint.c, I notice that a few ->permanent
checks seem to have been left behind, and as result we don't actually
remove from the target the breakpoints that were placed on top of the
permanent breakpoints?

This seems to fix the FAILs here, but I didn't run full regression
testing.  Could you take this, test it on qemu, and and finish it off?


Yes, of course. Thanks for having a go at it.

Luis


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]