Mirror of the gdb-patches mailing list
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Jerome Guitton <guitton@adacore.com>
To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org
Subject: [RFA] skip_prologue_sal and sal expansion
Date: Tue, 02 Jun 2009 16:21:00 -0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20090602162133.GA20678@adacore.com> (raw)

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2355 bytes --]


A couple of cleanups in breakpoint.c. Let me give some background
first; consider the following program:

int counter = 42;

inline void
callee ()
{
  counter = 0; /* set breakpoint in an inlined function.  */
}

void
caller ()
{
  callee ();
}

int
main ()
{
  caller ();
  callee ();
  return counter;
}



When callee is inlined, we have three occurence for the line
"counter = 0;": inlined in caller, inlined in main, and not inlined.
When a breakpoint is set on this line, GDB sets a breakpoint on 3
locations.

(gdb) l p.c:6
1       int counter = 42;
2
3       inline void
4       callee ()
5       {
6         counter = 0;
7       }
8
9       void
10      caller ()
(gdb) b 6
Breakpoint 1 at 0x1800074: file p.c, line 6. (3 locations)


I have recently hit a bug in an assembler which was optimizing out the
prologue line info; it was making GDB think that the line
"counter = 0;" was a part of callee's prologue. And this pointed me to
something strange in GDB.

After having used this bogus assembler to generate my program, if I try
to set a breakpoint at line "counter = 0;", I end up with only one
occurence instead of three:

(gdb) b 6  
Breakpoint 1 at 0x1800074: file p.c, line 6.

The problem was in skip_prologue_sal defined in breakpoint.c. When it
actually skips a prologue, it does not assure that the other sal's
fields (explicit_pc and explicit_line) are left unchanged. In my case,
it was accidently changing explicit_line from 1 to 0. This change
disabled the line sal expansion, and in consequence we ended up with
the breakpoint set in only one location. I think that it's a bug in
skip_prologue_sal, this function should not change mess with these
fields.

Now, if I change skip_prologue_sal to copy explicit_line and
explicit_pc, the line expansion is done; but we should make sure that
prologue is skipped similarly, otherwise we get an assertion failure
when the address returned by resolve_sal_pc cannot be found after
line sal expansion:

(gdb) break p.c:6
../../src/gdb/breakpoint.c:5113: internal-error: expand_line_sal_maybe:
Assertion `found' failed.


Patch attached, tested on x86-linux. OK to apply?


2009-06-02  Jerome Guitton  <guitton@adacore.com>

	* breakpoint.c (expand_line_sal_maybe): When explicit_line,
	skip prologue on each sals.
	(skip_prologue_sal): Return explicit_line and explicit_pc
	unmodified.

[-- Attachment #2: inline.diff --]
[-- Type: text/x-diff, Size: 1568 bytes --]

Index: breakpoint.c
===================================================================
--- breakpoint.c	(revision 148760)
+++ breakpoint.c	(working copy)
@@ -207,6 +207,9 @@ static void disable_trace_command (char 
 
 static void trace_pass_command (char *, int);
 
+static void skip_prologue_sal (struct symtab_and_line *sal);
+
+
 /* Flag indicating that a command has proceeded the inferior past the
    current breakpoint.  */
 
@@ -5412,6 +5415,15 @@ expand_line_sal_maybe (struct symtab_and
 	    }
 	}
     }
+  else
+    {
+      for (i = 0; i < expanded.nelts; ++i)
+	{
+	  /* If this SAL corresponds to a breakpoint inserted using a
+	     line number, then skip the function prologue if necessary.  */
+	  skip_prologue_sal (&expanded.sals[i]);
+	}
+    }
 
   
   if (expanded.nelts <= 1)
@@ -5896,7 +5908,8 @@ set_breakpoint (char *address, char *con
 
 /* Adjust SAL to the first instruction past the function prologue.
    The end of the prologue is determined using the line table from
-   the debugging information.
+   the debugging information.  explicit_pc and explicit_line are
+   not modified.
 
    If SAL is already past the prologue, then do nothing.  */
 
@@ -5911,7 +5924,11 @@ skip_prologue_sal (struct symtab_and_lin
 
   start_sal = find_function_start_sal (sym, 1);
   if (sal->pc < start_sal.pc)
-    *sal = start_sal;
+    {
+      start_sal.explicit_line = sal->explicit_line;
+      start_sal.explicit_pc = sal->explicit_pc;
+      *sal = start_sal;
+    }
 }
 
 /* Helper function for break_command_1 and disassemble_command.  */

             reply	other threads:[~2009-06-02 16:21 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2009-06-02 16:21 Jerome Guitton [this message]
2009-06-02 16:51 ` Doug Evans
2009-06-15 10:49 ` Jerome Guitton
2009-06-17 19:34 ` Joel Brobecker
2009-06-19 15:17   ` Jerome Guitton

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=20090602162133.GA20678@adacore.com \
    --to=guitton@adacore.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