From: scott@scottlinder.com
To: Gdb Patches <gdb-patches@sourceware.org>
Subject: [RFC][PATCH] Support frames inlined into the outer frame
Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2020 16:43:55 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <237802b049d5e89a6d556559815b6f20@scottlinder.com> (raw)
AMD is working on a port of GDB for our GPUs based on the ROCm stack
(https://rocm.github.io/). We recently open-sourced the fork at
https://github.com/ROCm-Developer-Tools/ROCgdb. We hope to begin
upstreaming
patches where possible,
and https://gnutoolchain-gerrit.osci.io/r/c/binutils-gdb/+/767 is the
first
such patch.
We frequently have functions inlined into the outermost frame. The
current
implementation which introduced `outer_frame_id` as a "valid" ID
distinct from
`null_frame_id` does not support this, asserting the need for both a
valid
and non-`outer_frame_id` ID to base the ID of the inlined frame on.
This patch changes the definition of `outer_frame_id` slightly to
effectively
represent a class of IDs which identify a frame inlined into the outer
frame.
These differ in `artificial_depth`, but otherwise behave just as
`outer_frame_id` in that they are `FID_STACK_INVALID`, yet `frame_id_p`
returns
`true` and they compare equal to each other.
Running the testsuite both with and without the patch doesn't yield any
obvious
regressions, although I have not come up with a test case to prove this
out on
e.g. x86.
Does this seem reasonable? It is a bit of a hack on a hack, considering
the
existing issues with `outer_frame_id` and the obvious desire to remove
it
completely. At the same time, there is a fair amount of thought and
effort
involved in making that change, and I think it can/should be done
independently
of fixing this bug. My feeling is this patch is a pretty non-invasive
change
that doesn't make the situation fundamentally worse, but any feedback is
appreciated.
Cheers,
Scott
next reply other threads:[~2020-03-18 20:43 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 21+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-03-18 20:43 scott [this message]
2020-03-18 21:17 ` scott
2020-03-18 21:27 ` Simon Marchi
2020-03-18 21:42 ` scott
2020-03-18 21:45 ` Simon Marchi
2020-03-18 22:06 ` Scott Linder
2020-03-18 22:11 ` [PATCH] [gdb] " Scott Linder
2020-03-24 10:22 ` Andrew Burgess
2020-03-30 22:22 ` scott
2020-03-31 19:18 ` [PATCH v2] " Scott Linder
2020-04-03 17:00 ` Andrew Burgess
2020-04-17 20:41 ` Scott Linder
2020-04-03 19:37 ` Luis Machado
2020-04-17 20:51 ` Scott Linder
2020-06-04 16:11 ` Simon Marchi
2020-06-04 19:23 ` Simon Marchi
2020-06-08 12:00 ` Luis Machado
2020-06-08 16:01 ` Simon Marchi
2020-06-08 16:10 ` Luis Machado
2020-04-02 19:30 ` [PATCH] " Pedro Alves
2020-04-17 20:35 ` Scott Linder
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=237802b049d5e89a6d556559815b6f20@scottlinder.com \
--to=scott@scottlinder.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