This is the mail archive of the
gdb@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: JIT debugging (Attach and speed)
- From: Pedro Alves <palves at redhat dot com>
- To: Yichao Yu <yyc1992 at gmail dot com>
- Cc: gdb at sourceware dot org, Paul Pluzhnikov <ppluzhnikov at google dot com>
- Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2016 16:41:03 +0000
- Subject: Re: JIT debugging (Attach and speed)
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <CAMvDr+TKDYeECiUK7Kz7TGSRF826Vq24z_=CPQXz1vyxmMUm_w at mail dot gmail dot com> <56F168D7 dot 9050405 at redhat dot com> <56F16F8F dot 9050404 at redhat dot com> <CAMvDr+TRSF16fKnnb9tWD4Xctek31Sdgx2m1ct=UctXL_b9vuA at mail dot gmail dot com>
On 03/22/2016 04:22 PM, Yichao Yu wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 12:15 PM, Pedro Alves <palves@redhat.com> wrote:
>> On 03/22/2016 03:46 PM, Pedro Alves wrote:
>
>> I re-read the 2011 discussion, and it seems like we had an idea for a fix:
>
> IIUC the proposed fix might cause regression in some cases?
Yeah, there's no full fix available, only some ideas thrown out.
The last discussed one wouldn't cause a regression -- the
"longjmp"-caching idea. We may still need to defer breakpoint re-set
to at most once per jit load event, something like Paul's original
patch, but with a breakpoint_re_set call somewhere.
It'd even be better to somehow restrict breakpoint re-setting
to the jit modules that were added/removed/changed, but
that's harder.
>
>>>
>>> Do you know whether this happens with 7.11 and master, and if so,
>>> would it be possible for you to git bisect the culprit?
>
> This is 7.11 package from ArchLinux. I could try bi-secting although
> apparently you are faster at pin-point the issue.
>
>>
>> Currently, jit_inferior_created_hook -> jit_inferior_init is only
>> called when the inferior execs...
>>
>> Grepping around, I think that might have been
>> the fix for PR gdb/13431 (03bef283c2d3):
>> https://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2012-02/msg00023.html
>> which removed the inferior_created (jit_inferior_created_observer).
>>
>> Adding an inferior_created observer back likely fixes the issue.
>
> I'm happy to test patches.
I'm happy to provide guidance, but a fix would likely happen faster
if someone else stepped up to write it.
Thanks,
Pedro Alves