From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 16528 invoked by alias); 15 Apr 2008 12:31:27 -0000 Received: (qmail 16519 invoked by uid 22791); 15 Apr 2008 12:31:26 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from NaN.false.org (HELO nan.false.org) (208.75.86.248) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Tue, 15 Apr 2008 12:31:07 +0000 Received: from nan.false.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 33B6398278; Tue, 15 Apr 2008 12:31:05 +0000 (GMT) Received: from caradoc.them.org (22.svnf5.xdsl.nauticom.net [209.195.183.55]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1E7B798149; Tue, 15 Apr 2008 12:31:05 +0000 (GMT) Received: from drow by caradoc.them.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1JlkJT-0008WJ-Os; Tue, 15 Apr 2008 08:31:03 -0400 Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2008 12:54:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Pedro Alves , gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: 5/5 - handle glibc pointer mangling jmp_bufs (x86/x86_64) Message-ID: <20080415123103.GA32510@caradoc.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Pedro Alves , gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <200804070336.27192.pedro@codesourcery.com> <200804072325.50739.pedro@codesourcery.com> <20080414185843.GH1968@caradoc.them.org> <200804142020.07056.pedro@codesourcery.com> <20080414193049.GP1968@caradoc.them.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20080414193049.GP1968@caradoc.them.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-12-11) X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2008-04/txt/msg00280.txt.bz2 On Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 03:30:49PM -0400, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > You could do this even more evilly. Do it by setting a breakpoint on > setjmp, recording information before and after, and then deleting the > breakpoint until we re-run. Yes, this is getting excessive. But > there shouldn't ever be a call to longjmp without a call to setjmp > first. Thinking about this more, how hard would it be to single-step through longjmp instead? I'm sure there will be some platform where it doesn't work, and that platform can use the current get_longjmp_target mechanism, but for glibc platforms we could just step and see where we end up, then decide whether to continue or stop. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery