From: Hui Zhu <teawater@gmail.com>
To: Pedro Alves <pedro@codesourcery.com>,
ping huang <harderock@gmail.com>,
shuchang zhou <shuchang.zhou@gmail.com>
Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org,
Joel Brobecker <brobecker@adacore.com>,
Michael Snyder <msnyder@vmware.com>,
paawan oza <paawan1982@yahoo.com>,
Tom Tromey <tromey@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC] Add support of software single step to process record
Date: Thu, 27 May 2010 06:51:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <AANLkTimkYn0XfpHHgcrOJItxlRwro9cpD4OhMJfxQ6YF@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTin8YlU8tJyWj8ji-FOwANvJZxagchVvMVnGT8kN@mail.gmail.com>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 7361 bytes --]
On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 11:04, Hui Zhu <teawater@gmail.com> wrote:
> Thanks Pedro.
>
> On Sat, Jan 9, 2010 at 00:24, Pedro Alves <pedro@codesourcery.com> wrote:
>> On Monday 04 January 2010 14:23:21, Hui Zhu wrote:
>>> Sorry guys, the prev patch is so ugly.
>>
>> :-)
>>
>>> Thanks for teach me clear about the gdbarch_software_single_step, Pedro.
>>> I did some extend with your idea. Because record_wait need
>>> record_resume_step point out this resume is signal step or continue.
>>>
>>> if (!step)
>>> {
>>> /* This is not hard single step. */
>>> if (!gdbarch_software_single_step_p (gdbarch))
>>> {
>>> /* This is a normal continue. */
>>> step = 1;
>>> }
>>> else
>>> {
>>> /* This arch support soft sigle step. */
>>> if (single_step_breakpoints_inserted ())
>>> {
>>> /* This is a soft single step. */
>>> record_resume_step = 1;
>>> }
>>> else
>>> {
>>> /* This is a continue.
>>> Try to insert a soft single step breakpoint. */
>>> if (!gdbarch_software_single_step (gdbarch,
>>> get_current_frame ()))
>>> {
>>> /* This system don't want use soft single step.
>>> Use hard sigle step. */
>>> step = 1;
>>> }
>>> }
>>> }
>>> }
>>
>> Cool, this looks pretty clear to me now. Thanks.
>>
>>
>>
>>> @@ -1077,6 +1111,7 @@ record_wait (struct target_ops *ops,
>>> /* This is not a single step. */
>>> ptid_t ret;
>>> CORE_ADDR tmp_pc;
>>> + struct gdbarch *gdbarch = target_thread_architecture (inferior_ptid);
>>>
>>> while (1)
>>> {
>>> @@ -1099,6 +1134,9 @@ record_wait (struct target_ops *ops,
>>> tmp_pc = regcache_read_pc (regcache);
>>> aspace = get_regcache_aspace (regcache);
>>>
>>> + if (gdbarch_software_single_step_p (gdbarch))
>>> + remove_single_step_breakpoints ();
>>
>> This will gdb_assert inside remove_single_step_breakpoints
>> if SSS bkpts are not inserted, but gdbarch_software_single_step_p
>> returns true. This instead is safer:
>>
>> if (single_step_breakpoints_inserted ())
>> remove_single_step_breakpoints ();
>
> OK. I will fix it.
>
>>
>> But, what if it was infrun that had inserted the single-step
>> breakpoints, for a "next" or "step", etc.? Shouldn't you check
>> for record_resume_step too?
>>
>> if (!record_resume_step && single_step_breakpoints_inserted ())
>> remove_single_step_breakpoints ();
>>
>> Otherwise, the check below for
>>
>> else if (breakpoint_inserted_here_p (aspace, tmp_pc))
>> {
>> /* There is a breakpoint here. Let the core
>> handle it. */
>> if (software_breakpoint_inserted_here_p (aspace, tmp_pc))
>> {
>>
>> would fail, and the finished single-step wouldn't be reported to the
>> core, right?
>
> I think this single step will be handle by line:
> if (record_resume_step)
> {
> /* This is a single step. */
> return record_beneath_to_wait (record_beneath_to_wait_ops,
> ptid, status, options);
> }
>
>>
>>
>> Lastly, you may also want to confirm that the SSS bkpt managed by record.d itself explains the SIGTRAP before removing before issueing another
>> single-step. If any unexplainable SIGTRAP happens for any reason while
>> single-stepping, you should report it to infrun instead. In other words:
>>
>> With software single-stepping, we can distinguish most random
>> SIGTRAPs from SSS SIGTRAPs, so:
>>
>> /* This must be a single-step trap. Record the
>> insn and issue another step. */
>>
>> ... the "must" here ends up being a bit too strong. I'd certainly
>> understand ignoring this for simplicity or performance reasons though.
>
> Ah. Looks we didn't have good way to handle it. I change this comment to:
> /* This is a single-step trap. Record the
> insn and issue another step.
> FIXME: this part can be a random SIGTRAP too.
> But GDB cannot handle it. */
>
>
> Shuchang, could you try your code just use command si and
> reverse-xxx. If that part OK. Please help me try this patch.
>
> Ping, please help me test this patch. And about hellogcc, you can find us in:
> https://groups.google.com/group/hellogcc
> https://webchat.freenode.net/ #hellogcc
>
> Thanks,
> Hui
>
> 2010-05-25 Hui Zhu <teawater@gmail.com>
>
> * breakpoint.c (single_step_breakpoints_inserted): New
> function.
> * breakpoint.h (single_step_breakpoints_inserted): Extern.
> * record.c (record_resume): Add code for software single step.
> (record_wait): Ditto.
>
Hello,
After do some test with Ping, I found some trouble and fixed them.
1. Add following:
@@ -1134,8 +1176,20 @@ record_wait (struct target_ops *ops,
break;
}
+ if (gdbarch_software_single_step_p (gdbarch))
+ {
+ /* Try to insert the software single step breakpoint.
+ If insert success, set step to 0. */
+ set_executing (inferior_ptid, 0);
+ reinit_frame_cache ();
+ if (gdbarch_software_single_step (gdbarch,
+
get_current_frame ()))
+ step = 0;
+ set_executing (inferior_ptid, 1);
+ }
This is because in record_wait, we cannot call get_current_frame ()
directly. And the frame message need refresh each exec cycle.
2. Ping found that reverse-exec cannot single step in RISC board.
That is because "gdbarch_software_single_step" just can insert the
breakpoint to the next addr. So I add following:
@@ -1436,7 +1436,8 @@ maybe_software_singlestep (struct gdbarc
{
int hw_step = 1;
- if (gdbarch_software_single_step_p (gdbarch)
+ if (execution_direction == EXEC_FORWARD
+ && gdbarch_software_single_step_p (gdbarch)
&& gdbarch_software_single_step (gdbarch, get_current_frame ()))
If reverse, gdb will not user sss breakpoint to single step.
3. Ping got some gdb_assert in sometime. And I am not close to his
board. So I didn't know what happen. So I add following:
@@ -1534,7 +1535,8 @@ a command like `return' or `jump' to con
/* If STEP is set, it's a request to use hardware stepping
facilities. But in that case, we should never
use singlestep breakpoint. */
- gdb_assert (!(singlestep_breakpoints_inserted_p && step));
+ gdb_assert (!(execution_direction == EXEC_FORWARD
+ && singlestep_breakpoints_inserted_p && step));
The lost one still need be test.
Thanks,
Hui
[-- Attachment #2: prec_software_single_step.txt --]
[-- Type: text/plain, Size: 5450 bytes --]
---
breakpoint.c | 10 +++++++++
breakpoint.h | 1
infrun.c | 6 +++--
record.c | 64 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----
4 files changed, 74 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
--- a/breakpoint.c
+++ b/breakpoint.c
@@ -10293,6 +10293,16 @@ insert_single_step_breakpoint (struct gd
paddress (gdbarch, next_pc));
}
+/* Check if the breakpoints used for software single stepping
+ were inserted or not. */
+
+int
+single_step_breakpoints_inserted (void)
+{
+ return (single_step_breakpoints[0] != NULL
+ || single_step_breakpoints[1] != NULL);
+}
+
/* Remove and delete any breakpoints used for software single step. */
void
--- a/breakpoint.h
+++ b/breakpoint.h
@@ -983,6 +983,7 @@ extern int remove_hw_watchpoints (void);
twice before remove is called. */
extern void insert_single_step_breakpoint (struct gdbarch *,
struct address_space *, CORE_ADDR);
+extern int single_step_breakpoints_inserted (void);
extern void remove_single_step_breakpoints (void);
/* Manage manual breakpoints, separate from the normal chain of
--- a/infrun.c
+++ b/infrun.c
@@ -1436,7 +1436,8 @@ maybe_software_singlestep (struct gdbarc
{
int hw_step = 1;
- if (gdbarch_software_single_step_p (gdbarch)
+ if (execution_direction == EXEC_FORWARD
+ && gdbarch_software_single_step_p (gdbarch)
&& gdbarch_software_single_step (gdbarch, get_current_frame ()))
{
hw_step = 0;
@@ -1534,7 +1535,8 @@ a command like `return' or `jump' to con
/* If STEP is set, it's a request to use hardware stepping
facilities. But in that case, we should never
use singlestep breakpoint. */
- gdb_assert (!(singlestep_breakpoints_inserted_p && step));
+ gdb_assert (!(execution_direction == EXEC_FORWARD
+ && singlestep_breakpoints_inserted_p && step));
/* Decide the set of threads to ask the target to resume. Start
by assuming everything will be resumed, than narrow the set
--- a/record.c
+++ b/record.c
@@ -1007,9 +1007,43 @@ record_resume (struct target_ops *ops, p
if (!RECORD_IS_REPLAY)
{
+ struct gdbarch *gdbarch = target_thread_architecture (ptid);
+
record_message (get_current_regcache (), signal);
- record_beneath_to_resume (record_beneath_to_resume_ops, ptid, 1,
- signal);
+
+ if (!step)
+ {
+ /* This is not hard single step. */
+ if (!gdbarch_software_single_step_p (gdbarch))
+ {
+ /* This is a normal continue. */
+ step = 1;
+ }
+ else
+ {
+ /* This arch support soft sigle step. */
+ if (single_step_breakpoints_inserted ())
+ {
+ /* This is a soft single step. */
+ record_resume_step = 1;
+ }
+ else
+ {
+ /* This is a continue.
+ Try to insert a soft single step breakpoint. */
+ if (!gdbarch_software_single_step (gdbarch,
+ get_current_frame ()))
+ {
+ /* This system don't want use soft single step.
+ Use hard sigle step. */
+ step = 1;
+ }
+ }
+ }
+ }
+
+ record_beneath_to_resume (record_beneath_to_resume_ops,
+ ptid, step, signal);
}
}
@@ -1082,12 +1116,16 @@ record_wait (struct target_ops *ops,
/* This is not a single step. */
ptid_t ret;
CORE_ADDR tmp_pc;
+ struct gdbarch *gdbarch = target_thread_architecture (inferior_ptid);
while (1)
{
ret = record_beneath_to_wait (record_beneath_to_wait_ops,
ptid, status, options);
+ if (single_step_breakpoints_inserted ())
+ remove_single_step_breakpoints ();
+
/* Is this a SIGTRAP? */
if (status->kind == TARGET_WAITKIND_STOPPED
&& status->value.sig == TARGET_SIGNAL_TRAP)
@@ -1124,8 +1162,12 @@ record_wait (struct target_ops *ops,
}
else
{
- /* This must be a single-step trap. Record the
- insn and issue another step. */
+ /* This is a single-step trap. Record the
+ insn and issue another step.
+ FIXME: this part can be a random SIGTRAP too.
+ But GDB cannot handle it. */
+ int step = 1;
+
if (!record_message_wrapper_safe (regcache,
TARGET_SIGNAL_0))
{
@@ -1134,8 +1176,20 @@ record_wait (struct target_ops *ops,
break;
}
+ if (gdbarch_software_single_step_p (gdbarch))
+ {
+ /* Try to insert the software single step breakpoint.
+ If insert success, set step to 0. */
+ set_executing (inferior_ptid, 0);
+ reinit_frame_cache ();
+ if (gdbarch_software_single_step (gdbarch,
+ get_current_frame ()))
+ step = 0;
+ set_executing (inferior_ptid, 1);
+ }
+
record_beneath_to_resume (record_beneath_to_resume_ops,
- ptid, 1,
+ ptid, step,
TARGET_SIGNAL_0);
continue;
}
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-05-27 6:49 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-12-18 8:21 Hui Zhu
2009-12-18 19:37 ` Michael Snyder
2009-12-20 13:48 ` Joel Brobecker
2009-12-23 6:38 ` Hui Zhu
2009-12-23 6:52 ` Joel Brobecker
2009-12-23 9:24 ` Hui Zhu
[not found] ` <8d62b6fe0912231751p1202294cw83430e8d53af0951@mail.gmail.com>
2009-12-24 1:54 ` Fwd: " shuchang zhou
2009-12-24 17:38 ` Pedro Alves
2010-01-04 14:23 ` Hui Zhu
2010-01-08 16:24 ` Pedro Alves
2010-05-25 5:14 ` Hui Zhu
2010-05-27 6:51 ` Hui Zhu [this message]
2010-06-11 13:55 ` Pedro Alves
2010-06-20 7:29 ` Hui Zhu
2010-06-22 10:13 ` Pedro Alves
2010-07-19 7:58 ` Hui Zhu
2009-12-22 18:23 ` Tom Tromey
2009-12-23 3:09 ` Hui Zhu
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=AANLkTimkYn0XfpHHgcrOJItxlRwro9cpD4OhMJfxQ6YF@mail.gmail.com \
--to=teawater@gmail.com \
--cc=brobecker@adacore.com \
--cc=gdb-patches@sourceware.org \
--cc=harderock@gmail.com \
--cc=msnyder@vmware.com \
--cc=paawan1982@yahoo.com \
--cc=pedro@codesourcery.com \
--cc=shuchang.zhou@gmail.com \
--cc=tromey@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