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] |
Hi Ulrich/Kevin, I have modified the patch and implemented it using the trad frame cache. Please review and let me know the comments. Here is the dwarf test results summary. Right now gdb isn't properly able to debug stabs binary which i will be debugging. Without patch ============= # of expected passes 18912 # of unexpected failures 2289 # of expected failures 14 # of known failures 17 # of unresolved testcases 29 # of untested testcases 64 # of unsupported tests 37 With patch ========== # of expected passes 18936 # of unexpected failures 2265 # of expected failures 14 # of known failures 17 # of unresolved testcases 27 # of untested testcases 65 # of unsupported tests 37 Thanks, Sangamesh From: Sangamesh Mallayya/India/IBM To: "Ulrich Weigand" <uweigand@de.ibm.com> Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org, kevinb@redhat.com (Kevin Buettner) Date: 09/27/2018 02:03 PM Subject: Re: [PATCH] Adding support for reding signal handler frame in AIX Thanks Ulrich and kevin for the review and comments. Sorry for the late reply as i was off due to personal emergency. I will have look at the suggestions and implement the new changes. Thanks, Sangamesh From: "Ulrich Weigand" <uweigand@de.ibm.com> To: Sangamesh Mallayya/India/IBM@IBMIN Cc: kevinb@redhat.com (Kevin Buettner), gdb-patches@sourceware.org Date: 09/12/2018 07:23 PM Subject: Re: [PATCH] Adding support for reding signal handler frame in AIX Sangamesh Mallayya wrote: > Yes. Thanks! > Earlier code was calling validate function twice which wasn't required. > We can remove that AIX ifdef and i have made the below changes. Rest all=20 > are same. > Let me know your view on this. > > # diff -u tramp-frame.c_orig tramp-frame.c > --- tramp-frame.c_orig 2018-08-27 03:25:49 +0000 > +++ tramp-frame.c 2018-09-07 10:20:09 +0000 > @@ -86,11 +86,15 @@ > struct gdbarch *gdbarch =3D get_frame_arch (this_frame); > enum bfd_endian byte_order =3D gdbarch_byte_order (gdbarch); > int ti; > + CORE_ADDR old_pc =3D pc; > =20 > /* Check if we can use this trampoline. */ > if (tramp->validate && !tramp->validate (tramp, this_frame, &pc)) > return 0; > - > + if ((tramp->insn[0].bytes =3D=3D TRAMP_SENTINEL_INSN) && > + (tramp->insn[1].bytes =3D=3D AIX_TRAMP_SENTINEL_INSN) && > + (old_pc < 0x1000000)) > + return pc; I agree with Kevin that code like this shouldn't be in common code. It looks like the underlying problem is that tramp-frame isn't a good match for what you're trying to do: tramp-frame tries to detect trampolines by matching well-known *code sequences*. However, you don't actually have any code sequence to match, but want to identify trampolines solely by their PC. Since you pass no code sequence to the tramp-frame matcher, it will actually never match. I'd suggest the best way forward is to not actually use tramp-frame at all then, but just write your own matcher based directly on a trad-frame cache. An example to look at might be s390_stub_frame_unwind. Along those lines, you can implement a sniffer that checks for special PC value (and possibly a backchain zero check in addition), and then implement this_id and prev_register routines based on a trad-frame register cache (you should be able to use the aix_sigtramp_cache routine in your patch as-is for that part). Bye, Ulrich -- Dr. Ulrich Weigand GNU/Linux compilers and toolchain Ulrich.Weigand@de.ibm.com
Attachment:
aix-sighandle.patch
Description: Binary data
Attachment:
ChangeLog_gdb
Description: Binary data
Attachment:
ChangeLog_testsuites
Description: Binary data
Attachment:
aix-sighandle_test.c
Description: Binary data
Attachment:
aix-sighandle_test.exp
Description: Binary data
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |