This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [pushed] Change inline frame breakpoint skipping logic (fix gdb.gdb/selftest.exp)
Hello,
> gdb/ChangeLog:
> 2018-06-19 Pedro Alves <palves@redhat.com>
>
> * inline-frame.c (stopped_by_user_bp_inline_frame): Replace PC
> parameter with a block parameter. Compare location's block symbol
> with the frame's block instead of addresses.
> (skip_inline_frames): Pass the current block instead of the
> frame's address. Break out as soon as we determine the frame
> should not be skipped.
>
> gdb/testsuite/ChangeLog:
> 2018-06-19 Pedro Alves <palves@redhat.com>
>
> * gdb.opt/inline-break.c (func_inline_callee, func_inline_caller)
> (func_extern_caller): New.
> (main): Call func_extern_caller.
> * gdb.opt/inline-break.exp: Add tests for inline frame skipping
> logic change.
it looks like this patch is causing a crash with the following
example program:
$ cat -n r.h
1 /* r.h */
2 int counter = 42;
3
4 inline void
5 callee () {
6 counter = 0; /* break here */
7 }
$ cat -n r.c
1 /* r.c */
2 #include "r.h"
3
4 int
5 main ()
6 {
7 callee ();
8 }
I compiled it using the following commands:
$ gcc -c -g -O2 r.c
$ gcc -o r r.o
Then, trying to put a breakpoint on r.h:6 (inside "callee") causes
a SEGV for me:
$ gdb -q r
Reading symbols from r...done.
(gdb) b r.h:6
Breakpoint 1 at 0x4003c0: file r.h, line 6.
(gdb) run
Starting program: /[...]/r
[1] 75618 segmentation fault /[...]/gdb -q r
Prior to this commit, the behavior is the following for the "run"
command:
(gdb) run
Starting program: /[...]/r
Breakpoint 1, callee () at r.h:6
6 counter = 0; /* break here */
The problem occurs because we apparently assume that a bp_location's
symbols is not NULL:
Program received signal SIGSEGV, Segmentation fault.
0x00000000006f42bb in stopped_by_user_bp_inline_frame (
stop_chain=<optimized out>, frame_block=<optimized out>)
at /homes/brobecke/act/gdb/gdb-head/gdb/inline-frame.c:305
305 && frame_block == SYMBOL_BLOCK_VALUE (loc->symbol))
(gdb) p loc->symbol
$1 = (const symbol *) 0x0
I don't know yet whether that's a valid assumption or something
occurred earlier in the process. Any thoughts on this before I start
looking deeper?
I'm using a version of GCC 7.3.1 on x86_64-linux if anyone wants to
reproduce.
--
Joel