From: Daniel Jacobowitz <dan@codesourcery.com>
To: Jan Kratochvil <jan.kratochvil@redhat.com>
Cc: Pedro Alves <pedro@codesourcery.com>, gdb-patches@sourceware.org
Subject: Re: [patch] STT_GNU_IFUNC support
Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2010 14:46:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20100217144614.GI9493@caradoc.them.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20100217141912.GA28715@host0.dyn.jankratochvil.net>
On Wed, Feb 17, 2010 at 03:19:12PM +0100, Jan Kratochvil wrote:
> (C) Print just the bare ifunc-resolver address for "p strcmp".
>
> +(CACHE) = + possibility: Cache the pointer in GDB.
>
> "Regular users" just print "strcmp (...)" and do not print "strcmp" which
> possibly makes (C) a viable option.
I don't know. What about "disassemble strcmp" - I think it should
disassemble the same thing that will show up in the assembly as "call
0x$hex <strcmp>". But maybe automatically disassembling strcmp_sse is
more useful.
Hmm. I guess that leaves "break strcmp" in a weird place since strcmp
will only be called once. Maybe a breakpoint on an indirect function
should also set a breakpoint on the target of the indirect function?
This is slightly awkward to implement because there's no debug hook
after the indirect function returns; we'd have to do that
automatically to set the second breakpoint, or risk missing calls.
I'm open to suggestions.
> I would choose (A) + (CACHE) myself. I did not find (CACHE) to be such
> a concern to implement it. Inferior calls may be slow on embedded targets?
Inferior calls are hundreds of times slower than symbol lookups. GDB
can do a lot of symbol lookups behind the scenes, for instance "info
func" will do a lookup_symbol for every function. Since native x86_64
Linux inferior calls are only hundreds of times slower, you may not
notice this as much. On a slower target, or a remote target, it may
be thousands of times slower.
--
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-02-17 14:46 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-02-14 20:35 Jan Kratochvil
2010-02-14 21:43 ` Mark Kettenis
2010-02-14 21:59 ` Jan Kratochvil
2010-02-15 18:40 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2010-02-15 18:49 ` Jan Kratochvil
2010-02-17 12:34 ` Pedro Alves
2010-02-17 14:19 ` Jan Kratochvil
2010-02-17 14:46 ` Daniel Jacobowitz [this message]
2010-02-17 17:45 ` Jan Kratochvil
2010-02-17 14:52 ` Pedro Alves
2010-02-17 17:33 ` Jan Kratochvil
2010-02-17 17:55 ` Pedro Alves
2010-02-17 18:12 ` Jan Kratochvil
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=20100217144614.GI9493@caradoc.them.org \
--to=dan@codesourcery.com \
--cc=gdb-patches@sourceware.org \
--cc=jan.kratochvil@redhat.com \
--cc=pedro@codesourcery.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