From: "Tiago Stürmer Daitx" <tdaitx@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: GDB Development <gdb@sourceware.org>
Subject: Get longjmp target check in breakpoint.c - is it necessary?
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2013 02:36:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1383186973.5925.103.camel@localhost.localdomain> (raw)
We have in gdb/breakpoint.c the following condition checking:
3222 if (!gdbarch_get_longjmp_target_p (gdbarch))¬
3223 » continue;¬
Which is forcing me to implement an (unnecessary?) arch specific
get_longjmp_target while having a longjmp user probe in glibc should be
enough. Removing that if/continue statement showed no regressions - it
actually fixed 3 longjmp failures (assuming proper support in glibc for
a longjmp probe is in place).
I would be glad to hear your thoughts on any possible side effects of
removing that statement.
$ diff -u gdb/testsuite/gdb.sum
gdb/testsuite/gdb-no-get-longjmp-target-check.sum
[snip]
-FAIL: gdb.base/longjmp.exp: next over longjmp(1)
+PASS: gdb.base/longjmp.exp: next over longjmp(1)
+PASS: gdb.base/longjmp.exp: next into else block (1)
+PASS: gdb.base/longjmp.exp: next into safety net (1)
PASS: gdb.base/longjmp.exp: breakpoint at pattern 2 start
PASS: gdb.base/longjmp.exp: continue to breakpoint at pattern 2 start
PASS: gdb.base/longjmp.exp: breakpoint at miss_step_2
PASS: gdb.base/longjmp.exp: next over setjmp (2)
-FAIL: gdb.base/longjmp.exp: next over call_longjmp (2)
+PASS: gdb.base/longjmp.exp: next over call_longjmp (2)
+PASS: gdb.base/longjmp.exp: next into else block (2)
+PASS: gdb.base/longjmp.exp: next into safety net (2)
[snip]
-XFAIL: gdb.base/stale-infcall.exp: test system longjmp tracking support
-UNTESTED: gdb.base/stale-infcall.exp: System lacks support for tracking
longjmps
+PASS: gdb.base/stale-infcall.exp: test system longjmp tracking support
+PASS: gdb.base/stale-infcall.exp: delete $test_fail_bpnum
+PASS: gdb.base/stale-infcall.exp: continue to breakpoint: break-run1
+PASS: gdb.base/stale-infcall.exp: print infcall ()
+PASS: gdb.base/stale-infcall.exp: stack corrupted
+PASS: gdb.base/stale-infcall.exp: bt
+PASS: gdb.base/stale-infcall.exp: maintenance print dummy-frames
+PASS: gdb.base/stale-infcall.exp: maintenance info breakpoints
Everything was tested on both PPC and PPC64. The glibc user probes have
been implemented but are not yet upstream.
Cheers!
-tiago
--
Tiago Stürmer Daitx
tdaitx@linux.vnet.ibm.com
IBM - Linux Technology Center
next reply other threads:[~2013-10-31 2:36 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-10-31 2:36 Tiago Stürmer Daitx [this message]
2013-10-31 13:27 ` Edjunior Barbosa Machado
2013-10-31 14:46 ` Tiago Stürmer Daitx
2013-10-31 14:46 ` Sergio Durigan Junior
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=1383186973.5925.103.camel@localhost.localdomain \
--to=tdaitx@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=gdb@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