From: Pedro Alves <alves.ped@gmail.com>
To: Jan Kratochvil <jan.kratochvil@redhat.com>
Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org
Subject: Re: [patch] Fix gdb.cp/gdb2495.exp regression with gcc-4.7
Date: Mon, 02 Jan 2012 14:10:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4F01BAA6.8000004@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20111222202047.GA16110@host2.jankratochvil.net>
On 12/22/2011 08:20 PM, Jan Kratochvil wrote:
> @@ -634,9 +635,32 @@ call_function_by_hand (struct value *function, int nargs, struct value **args)
> case AT_ENTRY_POINT:
> {
> CORE_ADDR dummy_addr;
> + gdb_byte *insn;
> + CORE_ADDR insn_len;
>
> real_pc = funaddr;
> dummy_addr = entry_point_address ();
> +
> + /* If the inferior call throws an uncaught C++ exception the inferior
> + unwinder will try to unwind all the frames incl. the dummy frame.
> + Using the entry_point_address directly will try to find FDE at the
> + function right before the entry_point_address address as the
> + unwinder subtracts 1 to get at the call instruction. FDE of the
> + preceding function, if found, would be invalid for the dummy frame
> + and it would crash the inferior's unwinder. Therefore attempt to
> + skip the very first instruction of entry_point_address. */
> +
I'm confused. Shouldn't this instead be handled in the unwind
machinery? Is this subtraction you refer to the
get_frame_address_in_block one? That already has special
handling for something like this. Why doesn't it work?
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-01-02 14:10 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 24+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-12-22 20:49 Jan Kratochvil
2011-12-27 6:23 ` Joel Brobecker
2011-12-28 16:30 ` Jan Kratochvil
2011-12-28 18:47 ` [patch] Fix gdb.cp/gdb2495.exp regression with gcc-4.7 #2 Jan Kratochvil
2011-12-28 20:40 ` Mark Kettenis
2011-12-30 2:45 ` [patch] Fix gdb.cp/gdb2495.exp regression with gcc-4.7 #3 Jan Kratochvil
2011-12-30 8:46 ` Joel Brobecker
2011-12-30 11:11 ` Mark Kettenis
2011-12-30 14:16 ` Jan Kratochvil
2011-12-31 2:56 ` Peter Schauer
2011-12-30 11:25 ` Jan Kratochvil
2012-01-01 22:22 ` Jan Kratochvil
2012-01-02 2:45 ` Joel Brobecker
2012-01-02 2:58 ` Jan Kratochvil
2012-01-03 14:45 ` Regression on PowerPC (Re: [patch] Fix gdb.cp/gdb2495.exp regression with gcc-4.7 #3) Ulrich Weigand
2012-01-03 15:52 ` Joel Brobecker
2012-01-04 14:01 ` [revert] " Jan Kratochvil
2012-01-04 14:09 ` Joel Brobecker
2012-03-08 23:24 ` [patch] Fix gdb.cp/gdb2495.exp regression with gcc-4.7 #4 [Re: [revert] Regression on PowerPC] Jan Kratochvil
2012-03-09 7:22 ` cancel: " Jan Kratochvil
2012-01-02 14:10 ` Pedro Alves [this message]
2012-01-02 14:20 ` [patch] Fix gdb.cp/gdb2495.exp regression with gcc-4.7 Jan Kratochvil
2012-01-02 14:44 ` Pedro Alves
2012-01-02 14:53 ` 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=4F01BAA6.8000004@gmail.com \
--to=alves.ped@gmail.com \
--cc=gdb-patches@sourceware.org \
--cc=jan.kratochvil@redhat.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