Mirror of the gdb-patches mailing list
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Ulrich Weigand" <uweigand@de.ibm.com>
To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org
Subject: [rfc] [4/4] SPU overlay support: Bugfix in remove_breakpoint
Date: Mon, 07 May 2007 22:27:00 -0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <200705072227.l47MR5AZ024929@d12av02.megacenter.de.ibm.com> (raw)

Hello,

this fixes a bug we discovered during SPU overlay testing.

The problem occurs when remove_breakpoint attempts to remove a
software breakpoint in an overlay section that is not currently
mapped.  The routine simply goes and writes the saved shadow
contents over that location -- but if another overlay section
is now mapped there, this will clobber its code.

The current behaviour was introduced by Michael Snyder's patch:
http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2002-04/msg00149.html
to support hardware breakpoints in overlays.

And I guess if this is a hardware breakpoint, it *should* be
removed -- otherwise the overlay manager would have to fiddle
with hardware breakpoint registers when swapping overlays.

However, for *software* breakpoints this looks definitely 
wrong to me.  So the patch below restores the old behaviour
for those: the shadow contents are restored only if the 
section is still mapped.

Any comments?  I plan on committing this after the rest of
the SPU overlay support patches.

Bye,
Ulrich


ChangeLog:

	* breakpoint.c (remove_breakpoint): Do not remove software
	breakpoints in unmapped overlay sections.

diff -urNp gdb-orig/gdb/breakpoint.c gdb-head/gdb/breakpoint.c
--- gdb-orig/gdb/breakpoint.c	2007-05-06 16:07:05.000000000 +0200
+++ gdb-head/gdb/breakpoint.c	2007-05-07 22:44:15.698329784 +0200
@@ -1585,8 +1585,14 @@ remove_breakpoint (struct bp_location *b
 		 don't know what the overlay manager might do.  */
 	      if (b->loc_type == bp_loc_hardware_breakpoint)
 		val = target_remove_hw_breakpoint (&b->target_info);
-	      else
+
+	      /* However, we should remove *software* breakpoints only
+		 if the section is still mapped, or else we overwrite
+		 wrong code with the saved shadow contents.  */
+	      else if (section_is_mapped (b->section))
 		val = target_remove_breakpoint (&b->target_info);
+	      else
+		val = 0;
 	    }
 	  else
 	    {
-- 
  Dr. Ulrich Weigand
  GNU Toolchain for Linux on System z and Cell BE
  Ulrich.Weigand@de.ibm.com


             reply	other threads:[~2007-05-07 22:27 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2007-05-07 22:27 Ulrich Weigand [this message]
2007-05-10 21:52 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2007-05-10 22:05   ` Ulrich Weigand
2007-05-11 17:29     ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2007-05-11 18:55       ` Ulrich Weigand
2007-05-11 19:00         ` Daniel Jacobowitz

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=200705072227.l47MR5AZ024929@d12av02.megacenter.de.ibm.com \
    --to=uweigand@de.ibm.com \
    --cc=gdb-patches@sourceware.org \
    /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