From: "Ulrich Weigand" <uweigand@de.ibm.com>
To: qiyaoltc@gmail.com (Yao Qi)
Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org (GDB Patches)
Subject: [pushed] Fix Cell/B.E. regression (Re: [PATCH 1/3] Clear non-significant bits of address on memory access)
Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2017 13:03:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20171220130318.D649DD80341@oc3748833570.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <868tdxlo28.fsf@gmail.com> from "Yao Qi" at Dec 20, 2017 09:57:03 AM
Yao Qi wrote:
> Nowadays, we strip non-significant bits in address, pass the stripped
> address to target cache and to_xfer_partial. It works for aarch64, but
> breaks ppc32/spu. However, in ppc32/spu case, ppu address and spu
> address is mixed together, differentiated by the top bit, so the number
> of significant bits of address is 64, because if we can't remove any of
> them. IMO, it is reasonable to set significant_addr_bits to 64 in ppc.
>
> I considered your suggestion that pushing address_significant call down,
> below spu-multiarch target, that means, many target's to_xfer_partial
> need to call address_significant, so I don't do that. Secondly, in the
> way you suggested, we still pass the original address to target cache,
> which works for ppu/spu, but it doesn't work for aarch64.
I've now pushed the patch below, which fixes the regression for now.
Longer term, I think the correct fix would probably be to make address
spaces explit, e.g. by passing an address space identifer to xfer_partial.
The gdbarch associated with that address space should then determine
whether truncation is required ...
Bye,
Ulrich
gdb/ChangeLog:
* spu-tdep.c (spu_gdbarch_init): Set set_gdbarch_significant_addr_bit
to 64 bits.
(ppc_linux_init_abi): Likewise, if Cell/B.E. is supported.
diff --git a/gdb/ppc-linux-tdep.c b/gdb/ppc-linux-tdep.c
index 0e43a64..5120490 100644
--- a/gdb/ppc-linux-tdep.c
+++ b/gdb/ppc-linux-tdep.c
@@ -1809,6 +1809,10 @@ ppc_linux_init_abi (struct gdbarch_info info,
/* Cell/B.E. cross-architecture unwinder support. */
frame_unwind_prepend_unwinder (gdbarch, &ppu2spu_unwind);
+
+ /* We need to support more than "addr_bit" significant address bits
+ in order to support SPUADDR_ADDR encoded values. */
+ set_gdbarch_significant_addr_bit (gdbarch, 64);
}
set_gdbarch_displaced_step_location (gdbarch,
diff --git a/gdb/spu-tdep.c b/gdb/spu-tdep.c
index fb9a5d8..dda3011 100644
--- a/gdb/spu-tdep.c
+++ b/gdb/spu-tdep.c
@@ -2720,6 +2720,9 @@ spu_gdbarch_init (struct gdbarch_info info, struct gdbarch_list *arches)
set_gdbarch_address_class_name_to_type_flags
(gdbarch, spu_address_class_name_to_type_flags);
+ /* We need to support more than "addr_bit" significant address bits
+ in order to support SPUADDR_ADDR encoded values. */
+ set_gdbarch_significant_addr_bit (gdbarch, 64);
/* Inferior function calls. */
set_gdbarch_call_dummy_location (gdbarch, ON_STACK);
--
Dr. Ulrich Weigand
GNU/Linux compilers and toolchain
Ulrich.Weigand@de.ibm.com
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-12-20 13:03 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 40+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-12-08 10:04 [PATCH 0/3 v3] [AArch64] Support tagged pointer Yao Qi
2017-12-08 10:04 ` [PATCH 1/3] Clear non-significant bits of address on memory access Yao Qi
2017-12-08 12:22 ` Pedro Alves
2017-12-08 15:13 ` Ulrich Weigand
2017-12-08 15:36 ` Yao Qi
2017-12-19 13:50 ` Ulrich Weigand
2017-12-19 15:41 ` Yao Qi
2017-12-19 16:15 ` Ulrich Weigand
2017-12-20 9:57 ` Yao Qi
2017-12-20 13:03 ` Ulrich Weigand [this message]
2017-12-20 13:59 ` [pushed] Fix Cell/B.E. regression (Re: [PATCH 1/3] Clear non-significant bits of address on memory access) Yao Qi
2017-12-08 10:04 ` [PATCH 2/3] Adjust breakpoint address by clearing non-significant bits Yao Qi
2017-12-08 12:22 ` Pedro Alves
2017-12-08 10:04 ` [PATCH 3/3] Clear non-significant bits of address in watchpoint Yao Qi
2017-12-08 12:23 ` Pedro Alves
2017-12-08 12:24 ` [PATCH 0/3 v3] [AArch64] Support tagged pointer Pedro Alves
2017-12-08 17:31 ` Yao Qi
2018-04-11 0:16 ` Omair Javaid
2018-04-11 0:37 ` Omair Javaid
2018-04-11 2:46 ` Simon Marchi
2018-04-11 10:14 ` Pedro Alves
2018-04-11 11:13 ` Omair Javaid
2018-04-11 11:19 ` Pedro Alves
2018-04-11 12:01 ` Omair Javaid
2018-04-11 18:27 ` Pedro Alves
2018-04-16 1:36 ` Omair Javaid
2018-04-16 22:57 ` Pedro Alves
2018-04-20 14:34 ` Omair Javaid
2018-04-20 16:13 ` Daniel Thompson
2018-04-23 7:50 ` Omair Javaid
2018-04-24 11:39 ` Pedro Alves
2018-04-24 15:44 ` Daniel Thompson
2018-04-24 11:48 ` Pedro Alves
2018-04-24 16:05 ` Daniel Thompson
2018-04-24 23:42 ` Omair Javaid
2018-04-25 0:09 ` Andrew Pinski
2018-04-25 8:04 ` Daniel Thompson
2018-04-26 8:11 ` Omair Javaid
2018-04-27 16:29 ` Daniel Thompson
2018-04-30 13:42 ` Omair Javaid
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=20171220130318.D649DD80341@oc3748833570.ibm.com \
--to=uweigand@de.ibm.com \
--cc=gdb-patches@sourceware.org \
--cc=qiyaoltc@gmail.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