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] gdb/riscv: Improve non-dwarf stack unwinding

From: Joel Brobecker <brobecker at adacore dot com>
To: Andrew Burgess <andrew dot burgess at embecosm dot com>
Cc: gdb-patches at sourceware dot org, jimw at sifive dot com, palmer at sifive dot com
Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2018 09:53:33 -0700
Subject: Re: [PATCH] gdb/riscv: Improve non-dwarf stack unwinding
References: <20180919164138.16480-1-andrew.burgess@embecosm.com> <20180926134916.GB8955@adacore.com> <20180926151112.GL5952@embecosm.com>

> > Are you sure you want to assert on the register number? What if
> > the instruction was malformed and the register number ended up
> > being larger than RISCV_NUM_INTEGER_REGS; is that possible?
> 
> Well, it shouldn't happen in the sense that, for a given instruction,
> if it operates on integer registers then the space in the encoding
> should only allow for up to RISCV_NUM_INTEGER_REGS registers (some
> encodings allow for less registers).
> 
> Right now I can't imagine a situation where one of those asserts could
> fire and it's not either a bug in GDB, or a bug in the libopcode field
> extraction code - hence an assert rather than an error.

OK, that's perfect. Thanks for the confirmation!

-- 
Joel

References:
- [PATCH] gdb/riscv: Improve non-dwarf stack unwinding
  - From: Andrew Burgess
- Re: [PATCH] gdb/riscv: Improve non-dwarf stack unwinding
  - From: Joel Brobecker
- Re: [PATCH] gdb/riscv: Improve non-dwarf stack unwinding
  - From: Andrew Burgess

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