From: James-Adam Renquinha Henri <arenquinha@cimeq.qc.ca>
To: Luis Machado <lgustavo@codesourcery.com>, gdb-patches@sourceware.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] (ARM Cortex-M) FPU and PSP aware exception frame unwinder
Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2016 16:23:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <5717ACDE.4070503@cimeq.qc.ca> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <570C1119.9090909@codesourcery.com>
> On 04/07/2016 05:07 PM, James-Adam Renquinha Henri wrote:
>> I submitted it as a bug to the GNU ARM Embedded initially, see here for
>> details: https://bugs.launchpad.net/gcc-arm-embedded/+bug/1566054
>>
>> Basically, this patch allow gdb to unwind properly an extended stack
>> frame, that is an exception frame with FPU state stacked. Additionally,
>> because all Cortex-M variants have 2 stack pointers, the Main Stack
>> Pointer (MSP) and the Process Stack Pointer (PSP), the code in the patch
>> also check which stack was used prior to the exception. That way,
>> backtraces work beautifully.
>>
>> In my original submission, I mentioned a known issue that I didn't try
>> to fix *yet*, because that would involve a lot more work, and the impact
>> is relatively minor: for a given outer frame, some FPU registers may not
>> be reported correctly. I hope you don't mind too much. I consider the
>> current patch still useful, because at least backtraces work, and it's
>> an annoyance not to be able to get them.
>
> I have feeling people will mind. Ideally it should keep the old behavior
> intact if possible. So if you can fallback to the old code, it should be
> ok.
Sorry I don't get it. The old code didn't work in the cases I'm
providing a fix for, so falling back to the old behavior means just
giving wrong results? *scratches head*
As I said, getting the behavior 100% correct would require much more
work, and I felt that it was better to provide an almost correct
solution so others would benefit quickly of this fix. It might be more
honest to report a warning to the user that s0-s16 and fpscr could be
incorrect upon detection of an extended frame. Mind that the old
situation was "I can't even backtrace past the (CPU) exception if I
happen to use the FPU", so IMHO it's less harmful to give inaccurate FPU
information.
Of course I or someone else can work to get it 100% right and we can
throw all that altogether if it's better that way.
James-Adam Renquinha Henri, Ing. jr
Ingénieur d'application
CIMEQ INC.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-04-20 16:23 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-04-07 22:07 James-Adam Renquinha Henri
2016-04-11 21:03 ` Luis Machado
2016-04-20 16:23 ` James-Adam Renquinha Henri [this message]
2016-04-20 16:27 ` Luis Machado
2016-04-11 21:56 ` Pedro Alves
2016-04-14 6:34 ` Tristan Gingold
2016-04-20 23:14 ` James-Adam Renquinha Henri
2016-04-22 14:17 ` Pedro Alves
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=5717ACDE.4070503@cimeq.qc.ca \
--to=arenquinha@cimeq.qc.ca \
--cc=gdb-patches@sourceware.org \
--cc=lgustavo@codesourcery.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