Re: [PATCH] Python API: Add gdb.is_in_prologue and gdb.is_in_epilogue.

[Martin Galvan <martin.galvan@tallertechnologies.com>]

On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 12:10 PM, Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> wrote:
>> From: Martin Galvan <martin.galvan@tallertechnologies.com>
>> Cc: Martin Galvan <martin.galvan@tallertechnologies.com>
>> +In general you shouldn't worry about passing a @var{functionStart}
>> +argument unless your binary doesn't have debugging info, in which case
>> +ommiting @var{functionStart} may result in @code{True} being returned
>> +when the @var{pc} is not actually inside a prologue.
>
> Isn't it better to require this argument in that case?  Zero is not
> very useful starting address, in most cases.

I looked at this again and I think it should stay as an optional
argument. GDB's in_prologue will only check for the functionStart
argument when it has no other way to determine whether the given PC
belongs to a prologue; otherwise it'll just ignore it. Because of
this, is_in_prologue will return True if we pass it a pc that belongs
to a prologue together with any valid address regardless of it being a
function start, let alone the function PC belongs to. Making it a
required argument to me sounds like we're asking is_in_prologue
whether PC is in the prologue of the function starting at
functionStart, instead of simply telling whether PC belongs to any
prologue (which was my original intent).

I thought of removing the functionStart argument altogether, however
if we're working without debugging info but we're certain of where the
function starts we can still get an accurate result instead of a false
positive. Let me know what you think of this so I can send v2 (I'll
also include a few minor corrections such as correctly casting
gdbpy_is_in_prologue to PyCFunction in the method table).

-- 


Martín Galván

Software Engineer

Taller Technologies Argentina


San Lorenzo 47, 3rd Floor, Office 5

Córdoba, Argentina

Phone: 54 351 4217888 / +54 351 4218211