From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andrew Cagney To: Mark Kettenis Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: [commit] Check undebuggable after sigtramp; Was: [patch/rfc] Useinsert_step_resume_breakpoint everywhere Date: Thu, 13 May 2004 19:40:00 -0000 Message-id: <40A3CF09.70807@gnu.org> References: <40A01953.7060906@gnu.org> <40A161F4.6050801@gnu.org> <200405122029.i4CKT0r4006056@elgar.kettenis.dyndns.org> <40A28D7B.90007@gnu.org> X-SW-Source: 2004-05/msg00413.html If you stepi into the trampoline, does gdb know that its got a signal trampoline? When stepping, this code: if (step_range_end != 1 && (step_over_calls == STEP_OVER_UNDEBUGGABLE || step_over_calls == STEP_OVER_ALL) && get_frame_type (get_current_frame ()) == SIGTRAMP_FRAME) { /* The inferior, while doing a "step" or "next", has ended up in a signal trampoline (either by a signal being delivered or by the signal handler returning). Just single-step until the inferior leaves the trampoline (either by calling the handler or returning). */ keep_going (ecs); return; } should be triggering causing the inferior to single step which makes it setting a breakpoint in main most puzzling. Try moving the above to before: if (step_over_calls == STEP_OVER_UNDEBUGGABLE && ecs->stop_func_name == NULL) { /* There is no symbol, not even a minimal symbol, corresponding to the address where we just stopped. So we just stepped inside undebuggable code. Since we want to step over this kind of code, we keep going until the inferior returns from the current function. */ handle_step_into_function (ecs); return; } Per the attached I've done this, I'm no longer seeing the panic. committed, Andrew 2004-05-13 Andrew Cagney * infrun.c (handle_inferior_event): Check for STEP_OVER_UNDEBUGGABLE after signal trampolines and function calls. Index: infrun.c =================================================================== RCS file: /cvs/src/src/gdb/infrun.c,v retrieving revision 1.160 diff -p -u -r1.160 infrun.c --- infrun.c 13 May 2004 18:42:29 -0000 1.160 +++ infrun.c 13 May 2004 19:25:13 -0000 @@ -2411,18 +2411,6 @@ process_event_stop_test: return; } - if (step_over_calls == STEP_OVER_UNDEBUGGABLE - && ecs->stop_func_name == NULL) - { - /* There is no symbol, not even a minimal symbol, corresponding - to the address where we just stopped. So we just stepped - inside undebuggable code. Since we want to step over this - kind of code, we keep going until the inferior returns from - the current function. */ - handle_step_into_function (ecs); - return; - } - if (step_range_end != 1 && (step_over_calls == STEP_OVER_UNDEBUGGABLE || step_over_calls == STEP_OVER_ALL) @@ -2434,6 +2422,22 @@ process_event_stop_test: inferior leaves the trampoline (either by calling the handler or returning). */ keep_going (ecs); + return; + } + + if (step_over_calls == STEP_OVER_UNDEBUGGABLE + && ecs->stop_func_name == NULL) + { + /* The inferior just stepped into, or returned to, an + undebuggable function (where there is no symbol, not even a + minimal symbol, corresponding to the address where the + inferior stopped). Since we want to skip this kind of code, + we keep going until the inferior returns from this + function. */ + /* NOTE: cagney/2004-05-12: This test is performed after the + sigtramp test as often sigtramps, while recognized by GDB, + have no symbol information. */ + handle_step_into_function (ecs); return; } >From kettenis@chello.nl Thu May 13 19:52:00 2004 From: Mark Kettenis To: cagney@gnu.org Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [commit] Check undebuggable after sigtramp; Was: [patch/rfc] Useinsert_step_resume_breakpoint everywhere Date: Thu, 13 May 2004 19:52:00 -0000 Message-id: <200405131952.i4DJqhxV019690@elgar.kettenis.dyndns.org> References: <40A01953.7060906@gnu.org> <40A161F4.6050801@gnu.org> <200405122029.i4CKT0r4006056@elgar.kettenis.dyndns.org> <40A28D7B.90007@gnu.org> <40A3CF09.70807@gnu.org> X-SW-Source: 2004-05/msg00414.html Content-length: 250 Date: Thu, 13 May 2004 15:39:53 -0400 From: Andrew Cagney Per the attached I've done this, I'm no longer seeing the panic. Works for me too. By the way, it was FreeBSD 4.7-RELEASE-p20 that was showing the problem. Mark