[Bug backtrace/16215] SPARC: can't compute CFA for this frame

["cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org" <sourceware-bugzilla at sourceware dot org>]

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16215

--- Comment #5 from cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org <cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
This is an automated email from the git hooks/post-receive script. It was
generated because a ref change was pushed to the repository containing
the project "gdb and binutils".

The branch, master has been updated
       via  14aba1ac0d583ebd77b7645f88308d75c0a69d0f (commit)
      from  ae6a105d22fb603dbfb956bbcedf9ae469323d55 (commit)

Those revisions listed above that are new to this repository have
not appeared on any other notification email; so we list those
revisions in full, below.

- Log -----------------------------------------------------------------
https://sourceware.org/git/gitweb.cgi?p=binutils-gdb.git;h=14aba1ac0d583ebd77b7645f88308d75c0a69d0f

commit 14aba1ac0d583ebd77b7645f88308d75c0a69d0f
Author: Joel Brobecker <brobecker@adacore.com>
Date:   Fri Nov 21 04:59:35 2014 +0100

    Lift DWARF unwinder restriction in dwarf2-frame.c::dwarf2_frame_cfa

    GDB is currently broken on all SPARC targets when using GCC 4.9.
    When trying to print any local variable:

        (gdb) p x
        can't compute CFA for this frame

    This is related to the fact that the compiler now generates DWARF 4
    debugging info by default, and in particular that it now emits
    DW_OP_call_frame_cfa, which triggers a limitation in dwarf2_frame_cfa:

       /* This restriction could be lifted if other unwinders are known to
          compute the frame base in a way compatible with the DWARF
          unwinder.  */
       if (!frame_unwinder_is (this_frame, &dwarf2_frame_unwind)
           && !frame_unwinder_is (this_frame, &dwarf2_tailcall_frame_unwind))
         error (_("can't compute CFA for this frame"));

    We couldn't append the dwarf2 unwinder to all SPARC targets because
    it does not work properly with StackGhost:
        https://www.sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2014-07/msg00012.html

    We also later discovered that using the DWARF2 unwinder means
    using it for computing the function's return address, which
    is buggy when it comes to functions returning a struct (where
    the return address is saved-pc+12 instead of saved-pc+8).
    This is because GCC is emitting the info about the return address
    as %o7/%i7 instead of the actual return address.  For functions
    that have debugging info, we compensate by looking at the function's
    return type and add the extra +4, but for function without debug
    info, we're stuck.

    EricB and I twisted the issue in all the directions we could think of,
    and unfortunately couldn't find a way to make it work without
    introduction one regression or another.

    But, stepping back a little, just removing the restriction seems to work
    well for us on all both sparc-elf and {sparc,sparc64}-solaris.
    After reviewing the previous discussions about this test, I could
    not figure out whether some unwinders were already known to have
    incompatible CFAs or if the concern was purely theoretical:
        https://www.sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2009-06/msg00191.html
        https://www.sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2009-07/msg00570.html
        https://www.sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2009-09/msg00027.html

    At the moment, we took the approach of trying it out, and see what
    happens...

    gdb/ChangeLog:

            PR backtrace/16215:
            * dwarf2-frame.c (dwarf2_frame_cfa): Remove the restriction
            the frame unwinder must either be the dwarf2_frame_unwind
            or the dwarf2_tailcall_frame_unwind.  Verify that this_frame's
            stack_addr is valid before calling get_frame_base.  Throw
            an error if not valid.

    Tested on sparc-solaris and sparc-elf with AdaCore's testsuite
    (the FSF testsuite crashes all of AdaCore's solaris machines).

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Summary of changes:
 gdb/dwarf2-frame.c |   12 ++++++------
 1 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.