From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 66133 invoked by alias); 14 Dec 2015 18:45:22 -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 66073 invoked by uid 89); 14 Dec 2015 18:45:16 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_HELO_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD 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 (AES256-GCM-SHA384 encrypted) ESMTPS; Mon, 14 Dec 2015 18:45:15 +0000 Received: from int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.22]) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A38F768E04; Mon, 14 Dec 2015 18:45:13 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.9.1]) by int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id tBEIjC6n006233; Mon, 14 Dec 2015 13:45:12 -0500 Message-ID: <566F0E37.8090905@redhat.com> Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2015 18:45:00 -0000 From: Pedro Alves User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.7.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Tedeschi, Walfred" , Joel Brobecker CC: "gdb-patches@sourceware.org" Subject: Re: [PATCH v1] Intel(R) MPX - Bound violation handling. References: <1445864086-4831-1-git-send-email-walfred.tedeschi@intel.com> <1445864086-4831-4-git-send-email-walfred.tedeschi@intel.com> <20151119000134.GB7958@adacore.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2015-12/txt/msg00265.txt.bz2 On 12/14/2015 05:43 PM, Tedeschi, Walfred wrote: > Joel and Pedro, > > Thanks a lot for your feedback! > > I Could address most of the comments in here. > An important one is still missing, namely this one: > >> +{ >> + long si_code; >> + struct regcache *regcache = get_current_regcache (); >> + struct gdbarch *gdbarch = get_regcache_arch (regcache); >> + >> + set_running (user_visible_resume_ptid (1), 0); > > This is the part that _really_ concerns me, not necessary because I think it's wrong (although, it is a big red flag for me), but because I don't understand why it's needed, and how it will affect things. > (From Joel) >> + si_code = parse_and_eval_long ("$_siginfo.si_code\n"); > > During the debugging time I understood that inferior was stopped. Gdb is that was in the process to determine in which state the inferior was. > In this sense I set the flag at this point to allow for the evaluation. Where is the error thrown that required brute-forcing set_running away? Can we try to find some other way to handle this? E.g., use something a bit lower level than parse_and_eval_long that bypasses the error? E.g., start from lookup_internalvar and then use type/value manipulation routines? Thanks, Pedro Alves > > I also looked in gdb for error handling while performing evaluations but did not find anything. > I am considering that the way to proceed is to use TRY and CATCH blocks. Would you recommend that? > > Thanks and regards,