From: Tom Tromey <tromey@redhat.com>
To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org
Subject: RFC: change needs_frame_tls_address
Date: Fri, 23 Jul 2010 22:33:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <m31vat3k2y.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> (raw)
I am curious to get reactions on this patch.
This fixes PR 11803, a gdb assertion resulting from trying to print the
TLS variable in this program:
class A { public: static __thread int num; };
__thread int A::num = 1;
int main() { return 0; }
For this we get a warning from value_static_field, then things go
downhill and we hit an internal_error. From the PR:
(gdb) print A::num
warning: static field's value depends on the current frame - bad debug info?
findvar.c:427: internal-error: read_var_value: Assertion `frame' failed.
A problem internal to GDB has been detected,
further debugging may prove unreliable.
Quit this debugging session? (y or n)
After tracing through the TLS code for a bit, I have concluded that TLS
does not really need a frame, at least not in the gdb sense. Instead, I
think it only needs registers -- a funny sort of distinction to make,
but nevertheless...
With this patch the behavior seems ok:
(gdb) p A::num
$1 = 1
(gdb) kill
Kill the program being debugged? (y or n) y
(gdb) p A::num
Cannot access memory at address 0xb7fdb6d8
If this seems acceptable I will write up a real test case.
If it is not acceptable, I would appreciate some enlightenment as to
what other approach I should take.
This built & regtested ok on x86-64 (compile farm).
Tom
2010-07-23 Tom Tromey <tromey@redhat.com>
PR exp/11803:
* dwarf2loc.c (needs_frame_tls_address): Don't require a frame.
Index: dwarf2loc.c
===================================================================
RCS file: /cvs/src/src/gdb/dwarf2loc.c,v
retrieving revision 1.95
diff -u -r1.95 dwarf2loc.c
--- dwarf2loc.c 13 Jul 2010 15:09:03 -0000 1.95
+++ dwarf2loc.c 23 Jul 2010 22:25:56 -0000
@@ -1053,13 +1053,15 @@
return 1;
}
-/* Thread-local accesses do require a frame. */
static CORE_ADDR
needs_frame_tls_address (void *baton, CORE_ADDR offset)
{
struct needs_frame_baton *nf_baton = baton;
- nf_baton->needs_frame = 1;
+ /* Thread-local accesses require registers, but not an actual
+ frame. This is a funny sort of distinction to make, but it lets
+ us avoid assertions elsewhere in gdb. */
+ nf_baton->needs_frame = 0;
return 1;
}
next reply other threads:[~2010-07-23 22:33 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-07-23 22:33 Tom Tromey [this message]
2010-07-24 1:04 ` Pedro Alves
2010-07-26 13:36 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
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=m31vat3k2y.fsf@fleche.redhat.com \
--to=tromey@redhat.com \
--cc=gdb-patches@sourceware.org \
/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