From: Paul Gilliam <pgilliam@us.ibm.com>
To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org
Cc: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org>,
Jim Blandy <jimb@red-bean.com>,
gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] add 'rs6000_in_function_epilogue_p()'
Date: Fri, 02 Dec 2005 20:12:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <200512021146.54036.pgilliam@us.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20051202011703.GA27515@nevyn.them.org>
On Thursday 01 December 2005 17:17, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 01, 2005 at 05:07:24PM -0800, Jim Blandy wrote:
> > Paul wanted to fast-track this patch, in hopes it could get into the
> > 6.4 release. Joel, what are your thoughts?
>
> I'm opposed. The patch is a serious hack - it assumes that the exit of
> the function is near the end of the function - and I think we need to
> think about the underlying issues a bit. It's also for a very minor
> bug.
>
This patch does *not* assume that the exit of the function is near the end of the function.
It's more/less of a hack than that!
Here is the 'algorithm':
1) scan forward from the point of execution:
a) If you find an instruction that modifies the stack pointer, execution is not in an epilogue, return.
b) Stop scanning if you find a return instruction or reach the end of the function.
2) scan backward from the point of execution:
a) If you find an instruction that modifies the stack pointer, execution *is* in an epilogue, return.
b) Stop scanning if you reach the beginning of the function.
Some other points:
* The PowerPC would not be the only architecture that uses 'gdbarch_in_function_epilogue_p()'.
* Danial may characterize the inability to watch a local variable as a very minor bug, but if a user (we have one) is
so desperate with a bug of their own that they see *software* watchpoints as a needed tool, I don't think they would
characterize this is "very minor". 8-)
* I know that this is a hack. It really is a fall-back-hack, as Jim Blandly aluded to in his posting:
http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2005-12/msg00028.html
* If the 'underlying cause' Jim refers to gets fixed, the hack will no longer be executed and it
could be removed, or it could stay.
* I would prefer the 'right' fix and will presue it, but for right now, this patch 'fixes' a bug and all though
it's a hack, it is isolated and easly addressed once the 'right' fix is found.
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID
From: Paul Gilliam <pgilliam@us.ibm.com>
To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org
Cc: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org>,
Jim Blandy <jimb@red-bean.com>,
gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] add 'rs6000_in_function_epilogue_p()'
Date: Fri, 02 Dec 2005 20:17:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <200512021146.54036.pgilliam@us.ibm.com> (raw)
Message-ID: <20051202201700.des1PlyltELlD8iNsszv55QksK9xuoSeaDtvjUzO6_A@z> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20051202011703.GA27515@nevyn.them.org>
On Thursday 01 December 2005 17:17, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 01, 2005 at 05:07:24PM -0800, Jim Blandy wrote:
> > Paul wanted to fast-track this patch, in hopes it could get into the
> > 6.4 release. Joel, what are your thoughts?
>
> I'm opposed. The patch is a serious hack - it assumes that the exit of
> the function is near the end of the function - and I think we need to
> think about the underlying issues a bit. It's also for a very minor
> bug.
>
This patch does *not* assume that the exit of the function is near the end of the function.
It's more/less of a hack than that!
Here is the 'algorithm':
1) scan forward from the point of execution:
a) If you find an instruction that modifies the stack pointer, execution is not in an epilogue, return.
b) Stop scanning if you find a return instruction or reach the end of the function.
2) scan backward from the point of execution:
a) If you find an instruction that modifies the stack pointer, execution *is* in an epilogue, return.
b) Stop scanning if you reach the beginning of the function.
Some other points:
* The PowerPC would not be the only architecture that uses 'gdbarch_in_function_epilogue_p()'.
* Danial may characterize the inability to watch a local variable as a very minor bug, but if a user (we have one) is
so desperate with a bug of their own that they see *software* watchpoints as a needed tool, I don't think they would
characterize this is "very minor". 8-)
* I know that this is a hack. It really is a fall-back-hack, as Jim Blandly aluded to in his posting:
http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2005-12/msg00028.html
* If the 'underlying cause' Jim refers to gets fixed, the hack will no longer be executed and it
could be removed, or it could stay.
* I would prefer the 'right' fix and will presue it, but for right now, this patch 'fixes' a bug and all though
it's a hack, it is isolated and easly addressed once the 'right' fix is found.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2005-12-02 19:15 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 39+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2005-11-30 23:56 Paul Gilliam
2005-12-01 5:21 ` Jim Blandy
2005-12-01 18:27 ` Paul Gilliam
2005-12-01 20:14 ` Paul Gilliam
2005-12-02 1:13 ` Jim Blandy
2005-12-02 1:23 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2005-12-02 20:12 ` Paul Gilliam [this message]
2005-12-02 20:17 ` Paul Gilliam
2005-12-03 3:05 ` Jim Blandy
2005-12-02 23:38 ` Jim Blandy
2005-12-04 20:19 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2005-12-04 18:59 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2005-12-04 20:48 ` Jim Blandy
2005-12-04 21:12 ` Jim Blandy
2005-12-04 21:16 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2005-12-04 21:22 ` Jim Blandy
2005-12-02 4:02 ` Joel Brobecker
2005-12-02 18:44 ` Mark Kettenis
2005-12-02 19:15 ` [PATCH] add 'rs6000_in_function_epilogue_p()' (Revised) Paul Gilliam
2005-12-02 20:28 ` Mark Kettenis
2005-12-02 21:19 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2005-12-02 21:21 ` Mark Kettenis
2005-12-03 4:53 ` [PATCH] add 'rs6000_in_function_epilogue_p()' (Revised, again) Paul Gilliam
2005-12-03 5:43 ` Paul Gilliam
2005-12-02 21:44 ` [PATCH] add 'rs6000_in_function_epilogue_p()' (Revised) Kevin Buettner
2005-12-06 15:20 ` Paul Gilliam
2005-12-06 15:15 ` Paul Gilliam
2005-12-08 4:42 ` Kevin Buettner
2006-01-11 17:44 ` Paul Gilliam
2006-01-12 0:12 ` Paul Gilliam
2006-01-12 23:53 ` Paul Gilliam
2006-01-13 21:05 ` Mark Kettenis
2006-01-17 3:46 ` Paul Gilliam
2006-01-17 19:29 ` Mark Kettenis
2006-02-09 17:46 ` Kevin Buettner
2005-12-02 22:19 ` Jim Blandy
2005-12-02 22:28 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2005-12-02 23:20 ` Jim Blandy
2005-12-03 12:48 ` Paul Gilliam
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=200512021146.54036.pgilliam@us.ibm.com \
--to=pgilliam@us.ibm.com \
--cc=drow@false.org \
--cc=gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com \
--cc=gdb-patches@sourceware.org \
--cc=jimb@red-bean.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox