Mirror of the gdb-patches mailing list
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Tedeschi, Walfred" <walfred.tedeschi@intel.com>
To: Pedro Alves <palves@redhat.com>, Joel Brobecker <brobecker@adacore.com>
Cc: "gdb-patches@sourceware.org" <gdb-patches@sourceware.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH v1] Intel(R) MPX - Bound violation handling.
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2015 11:01:00 -0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <AC542571535E904D8E8ADAE745D60B194450629D@IRSMSX104.ger.corp.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <566F0E37.8090905@redhat.com>

Pedro,

It comes from the infrun.c (validate_siginfo_access) .
The requirement is not running is not fulfilled. Also in the case that we execute a lookup_interval and ask for value_contents we trigger the same code.

What would be the suggestion here:
Additional function to be used internally in infrun or add a flag.

Thanks a lot for your comments and insights!
Best regards,
-Fred




-----Original Message-----
From: Pedro Alves [mailto:palves@redhat.com] 
Sent: Monday, December 14, 2015 7:45 PM
To: Tedeschi, Walfred; Joel Brobecker
Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1] Intel(R) MPX - Bound violation handling.

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,
Intel Deutschland GmbH
Registered Address: Am Campeon 10-12, 85579 Neubiberg, Germany
Tel: +49 89 99 8853-0, www.intel.de
Managing Directors: Christin Eisenschmid, Christian Lamprechter
Chairperson of the Supervisory Board: Nicole Lau
Registered Office: Munich
Commercial Register: Amtsgericht Muenchen HRB 186928


  reply	other threads:[~2015-12-15 11:01 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 31+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2015-10-26 15:09 [PATCH obv] Changing compiler flags for MPX tests Walfred Tedeschi
2015-10-26 16:10 ` [PATCH v1] Intel(R) MPX registers to the DWARF enumeration Walfred Tedeschi
2015-12-06 16:35   ` Joel Brobecker
2015-12-06 17:42     ` H.J. Lu
2015-12-07  8:29       ` Tedeschi, Walfred
2015-10-26 16:11 ` [PATCH v1] Synchronize siginfo type described in GDB with the kernel and glibc ones Walfred Tedeschi
2015-11-18 23:01   ` Joel Brobecker
2015-11-19  9:52     ` Tedeschi, Walfred
2015-11-19 13:27       ` Pedro Alves
2015-11-19 16:41         ` Tedeschi, Walfred
2015-11-19 17:07           ` Pedro Alves
2015-12-01 10:08             ` Tedeschi, Walfred
2015-12-01 12:08               ` Pedro Alves
2015-10-26 16:22 ` [PATCH v1] ABI changes for Intel(R) MPX Walfred Tedeschi
2015-10-26 19:07   ` Eli Zaretskii
2015-10-27 17:21     ` Tedeschi, Walfred
2015-12-06 16:16   ` Joel Brobecker
2015-10-26 16:25 ` [PATCH obv] Fix non stopping breakpoint on newer compilers Walfred Tedeschi
2015-11-04 14:42   ` Joel Brobecker
2015-10-26 16:26 ` [PATCH v1] Intel(R) MPX - Bound violation handling Walfred Tedeschi
2015-11-04 14:55   ` Joel Brobecker
2015-11-05 10:04     ` Tedeschi, Walfred
2015-11-19  0:01   ` Joel Brobecker
2015-12-14 17:43     ` Tedeschi, Walfred
2015-12-14 18:45       ` Pedro Alves
2015-12-15 11:01         ` Tedeschi, Walfred [this message]
2015-12-16 15:21           ` Tedeschi, Walfred
2015-12-16 16:52             ` Pedro Alves
2015-12-17 17:31               ` Tedeschi, Walfred
2015-12-21 17:23           ` Pedro Alves
2015-11-04 14:42 ` [PATCH obv] Changing compiler flags for MPX tests Joel Brobecker

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=AC542571535E904D8E8ADAE745D60B194450629D@IRSMSX104.ger.corp.intel.com \
    --to=walfred.tedeschi@intel.com \
    --cc=brobecker@adacore.com \
    --cc=gdb-patches@sourceware.org \
    --cc=palves@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