From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 12038 invoked by alias); 10 Apr 2014 23:56:21 -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 12027 invoked by uid 89); 10 Apr 2014 23:56:21 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: mail-vc0-f181.google.com Received: from mail-vc0-f181.google.com (HELO mail-vc0-f181.google.com) (209.85.220.181) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES128-SHA encrypted) ESMTPS; Thu, 10 Apr 2014 23:56:19 +0000 Received: by mail-vc0-f181.google.com with SMTP id id10so4204610vcb.12 for ; Thu, 10 Apr 2014 16:56:17 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.52.69.146 with SMTP id e18mr14055463vdu.15.1397174177811; Thu, 10 Apr 2014 16:56:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.58.243.98 with HTTP; Thu, 10 Apr 2014 16:56:17 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <87mwqjw613.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> References: <87li6nghhz.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> <51B11E66.70102@redhat.com> <87mwqjw613.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2014 23:56:00 -0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: RFC: fix PR backtrace/15558 From: Andrew Pinski To: Tom Tromey Cc: Pedro Alves , "gdb-patches@sourceware.org" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2014-04/txt/msg00193.txt.bz2 On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 1:41 PM, Tom Tromey wrote: > Pedro> Yeah, I was suggesting that "internal" / non-user-facing code > Pedro> should not be using get_prev_frame, but get_prev_frame_1 instead, > Pedro> bypassing all the checks. (Or rather wondering why that isn't > Pedro> so). Strongly more so in an unwinder's innards. get_prev_frame > Pedro> uses need to be investigated on a case-by-case manner manner to > Pedro> decide the best course of action, IMO. > > I agree from a design standpoint that this is superior. > > My main concern is that I am not confident that all the unwinders in the > tree actually stop sanely. If we believe that they do then it seems > straightforward to do the split as you suggest. > > Normally I don't like to code to work around potential bugs elsewhere. > However in some parts of gdb, like this one, it is difficult to do > otherwise, due to the testing problem. > > Anyway, this is why I split the function where I did. > > Pedro> So conceptually, in this case, I think what makes most sense it > Pedro> to skip _all_ the checks in get_prev_frame* that might return > Pedro> NULL, as there should always be a prev frame for an inline frame. > Pedro> IOW, in this case, I believe we should be making > Pedro> inline_frame_this_id call get_prev_frame_1, or whatever it gets > Pedro> renamed to, or equivalent. > > That sounds reasonable. I'll rework the patch next week. Hi Tom, What happened to this patch, I don't see any reference to it latter on? I think I am running into the same problem as this patch is fixing. Thanks, Andrew Pinski > > Tom