From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 28903 invoked by alias); 13 Dec 2013 15:44:47 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org Received: (qmail 28892 invoked by uid 89); 13 Dec 2013 15:44:46 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Fri, 13 Dec 2013 15:44:45 +0000 Received: from int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.11]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id rBDFifT8010103 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Fri, 13 Dec 2013 10:44:42 -0500 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.ams2.redhat.com [10.39.146.11]) by int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id rBDFidKQ003099; Fri, 13 Dec 2013 10:44:40 -0500 Message-ID: <52AB2B67.4070102@redhat.com> Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2013 15:44:00 -0000 From: Pedro Alves User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130625 Thunderbird/17.0.7 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Metzger, Markus T" CC: Jan Kratochvil , "gdb-patches@sourceware.org" Subject: Re: [patch v8 05/24] frame: artificial frame id's References: <1386839747-8860-1-git-send-email-markus.t.metzger@intel.com> <1386839747-8860-6-git-send-email-markus.t.metzger@intel.com> <52AA10DD.2020506@redhat.com> <20131212195531.GA6092@host2.jankratochvil.net> <52AAF8EA.4020608@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2013-12/txt/msg00532.txt.bz2 On 12/13/2013 12:59 PM, Metzger, Markus T wrote: >> -----Original Message----- >> From: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org [mailto:gdb-patches- >> owner@sourceware.org] On Behalf Of Pedro Alves > > >> Take a look at this patch: >> >> https://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2013-04/msg00541.html >> >> It seems to me your frames are exactly like those, though >> it sounds like you may have more than one frame with stack >> unavailable, and with the same code address, but that should >> be identified as different frames (please confirm). In that >> case, it seems like you could use the artificial depth to >> distinguish them. > > I have several frames, none of them has an available stack. > It's either my frames or some other frames. They are never > mixed. > > I may also have frames with the same code address and they > would need to be identified as different frames - confirmed. > > I'm assigning a unique identifier to special so I can distinguish > frames that have the same code address. That identifier is > preserved during stepping. Thanks for the explanation. > Afaik, the artificial depth is used for artificial frames beneath > a real frame. It's used for inline and tailcall frames. The > artificial_depth field is a simple counter. Yes, I see that wouldn't work. Too many assumptions around what artificial_depth means all over. > I could set stack_p to -1 instead of 0, though. Looks like this > already addresses some of the problems you listed. Yeah. Let me clean up that patch a little (and write a test for it), and you should then able to build such frames, and I don't think you'll need to change frame_id_eq then. > Do you have tests that demonstrate the issues you mentioned? > The tests in the repo behave identical with or without my changes. For stepping around the program entry point, I don't think there's any presently, and to trigger the issues, we'd need to undo the hack in infrun.c at least. The "tfind" case I mention in the patch I pointed to is similar though ("tfind" is kind of like "si" over trace frames). -- Pedro Alves