This is the mail archive of the gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com 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: [RFA] inside_entry_func() related changes


This patch changes the implementation of inside_entry_func() so that
the entry_func_{low,high}pc fields are not used.

It also enables the inside_entry_func() test within frame.c because
I need this to work for FR-V.  (Note that a previous patch removed
the inside_entry_func() call from frv-tdep.c.)

Kevin,


Re my comment:

-  /* NOTE: cagney/2003-02-25: Don't enable until someone has found
-     hard evidence that this is needed.  */

The revised patch I posted: http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb-patches/2003-11/msg00441.html contains the test:

-      && inside_entry_func (get_frame_pc (this_frame)))
+#if 0
+      && get_frame_func (this_frame) == entry_point_address ()
+#endif

(be it in a one line function or inline, what ever) while the patch you've proposed also introduces the additional checks:

  if (pc == 0)
    return 1;

and:


  if (CALL_DUMMY_LOCATION == AT_ENTRY_POINT)
    {
      /* Do not stop backtracing if the pc is in the call dummy
         at the entry point.  */
      /* FIXME: Won't always work with zeros for the last two arguments */
      if (DEPRECATED_PC_IN_CALL_DUMMY (pc, 0, 0))
        return 0;
    }

Rather than doing this (I assume that your frv test doesn't provide evidence supporting their introduction and this was unintentional), why not add a one-line function containing just the minimal test and then call that from get_prev_frame?


Note that, per MarkK's comment:
/* Make sure we pass an address within THIS_FRAME's code block to
inside_main_func. Otherwise, we might stop unwinding at a
function which has a call instruction as its last instruction if
that function immediately precedes main(). */
so a test based on get_frame_pc won't work. Also a call to entry_point_address() is preferable to to a reference to the global variable.


Daniel mentioned the doco, what about a testcase for just this?
(gdb) bt
#0 factorial (value=5)
at /ocotillo2/devo-frv/frv-elf/bld/../../devo/gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/break.c:96
#1 0x00010574 in factorial (value=6)
at /ocotillo2/devo-frv/frv-elf/bld/../../devo/gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/break.c:97
#2 0x000104c0 in main (argc=0, argv=0x0, envp=0x0)
at /ocotillo2/devo-frv/frv-elf/bld/../../devo/gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/break.c:79
(gdb) set backtrace past-main (gdb) bt
#0 factorial (value=5)
at /ocotillo2/devo-frv/frv-elf/bld/../../devo/gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/break.c:96
#1 0x00010574 in factorial (value=6)
at /ocotillo2/devo-frv/frv-elf/bld/../../devo/gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/break.c:97
#2 0x000104c0 in main (argc=0, argv=0x0, envp=0x0)
at /ocotillo2/devo-frv/frv-elf/bld/../../devo/gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/break.c:79
#3 0x00010118 in _start ()

Andrew




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