From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 32652 invoked by alias); 5 Mar 2004 23:39:37 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 32640 invoked from network); 5 Mar 2004 23:39:36 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO nevyn.them.org) (66.93.172.17) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 5 Mar 2004 23:39:36 -0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 4.30 #1 (Debian)) id 1AzOul-0003Vi-De; Fri, 05 Mar 2004 18:39:35 -0500 Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2004 00:09:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Andrew Cagney Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [patch/rfc,6.1?] Use right frame ID in step_over_function Message-ID: <20040305233935.GA13372@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Andrew Cagney , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com References: <40416BAF.1020308@gnu.org> <404906FF.9040508@gnu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <404906FF.9040508@gnu.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.1i X-SW-Source: 2004-03/txt/msg00118.txt.bz2 Message-ID: <20040319000900.k0JiD2Ed0qfbwJAs5gaeO24mhKeyDM6J06K2tkrkBQE@z> On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 06:02:23PM -0500, Andrew Cagney wrote: > >Hello, > > > >This goes into the "how did it ever work" category. The idea of > >step_over_function is that it: > > > >- finds the caller's resume address > >- finds the caller's frame ID > > > >and then sets a breakpoint for that caller instance of the function. The > >current code: > > > >- finds the caller's resume address > >- finds the _callee_ frame ID > > > >and then uses that to set the breakpoint. Now that is plain weird! It > >only works because either: > > > >- the step_frame_id patches up the bug > > > >- the values match as GDB is using the inner-most, rather than outer-most > >frame address as part of the frame ID > > > >The bug apepars when trying to step over nested shared library non-debug > >info functions (making sense?). > > > >I'll follow this up after 6.1 branch is in place. > > > >Its pretty heavy a change to apply to that branch and this late. However, > >like Joel's related patch, I suspect it will be needed :-/ > > I've checked this into the mainline. For the moment I think I'll drop > the idea of committing it to the branch. Since I'm not sure if you answered this already - is there a platform (presumably NetBSD/PPC?) on which this changes testsuite results, or did you just see it in using GDB on that platform? Anyway, great - there's a hack in the ARM sigtramp unwinder that I -suspect- is dead now. I'll investigate. -- Daniel Jacobowitz MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer