Re: x86 Q: why aren't the SSE intrinsics always_inline?

Re: x86 Q: why aren't the SSE intrinsics always_inline?

[Daniel Jacobowitz]

[Redirecting off the misnamed gdb-discuss list; please use
gdb@sourceware instead.]

On Tue, Jun 14, 2005 at 10:22:23AM +0100, Andrew Haley wrote:
> You have the same problem with Java -- you're stepping through a Java
> program, and all of a sudden you're inside the memory allocator.  What
> we _really_ need is some way to tell gdb "I'm debugging my own
> program, not the library" or somesuch.  Or, and this is less
> desirable, some way to persuade gcc not to output debug info inside
> some inlined functions, although I can't image how a priori you'd
> decide which ones.

It'd be better to handle this in gdb than in gcc, sure.  There's two
parts: better support for inline functions, which is already on the gdb
roadmap, and then some way of selecting which ones to ignore.  And for
that latter, I have no idea how it should look...

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery, LLC

Re: [Gdb-discuss] Re: x86 Q: why aren't the SSE intrinsics always_inline?

[Fred Fish]

On Tuesday 14 June 2005 10:55, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> better support for inline functions, which is already on the gdb
> roadmap

Where's the roadmap?  I'm just starting to look at this very issue
and would be good to know what is planned or in progress.

Thanks.

-Fred

Re: [Gdb-discuss] Re: x86 Q: why aren't the SSE intrinsics always_inline?

[Daniel Jacobowitz]

[Redirecting off gdb-discuss again]

On Tue, Jun 14, 2005 at 09:12:39PM -0400, Fred Fish wrote:
> On Tuesday 14 June 2005 10:55, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> > better support for inline functions, which is already on the gdb
> > roadmap
> 
> Where's the roadmap?  I'm just starting to look at this very issue
> and would be good to know what is planned or in progress.

I was being figurative :-)  We already know we need to do it.

I already have a 30% or so hack which handles creating inline function
frames.  It works well enough for simple backtraces.  But the symbol
table side of it is all rotten, so it's not very useful - segfaults a
lot.

I also have the first 20% or so of setting breakpoints on multiple
locations implemented, which is a necessary partner to that.  But
that's even less finished.

Ask me if you want either set of code.  The latest version of the
latter is in the gdb-patches archive from early this year.  I don't
think I ever posted the former - too gross.

If you want to work on anything without duplicating effort, it behooves
_you_ to discuss it on the mailing lists first.

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery, LLC

Re: [Gdb-discuss] Re: x86 Q: why aren't the SSE intrinsics always_inline?

[Fred Fish]

On Tuesday 14 June 2005 21:17, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:

> Ask me if you want either set of code.

Sure, I'd like to take a look at it.

> If you want to work on anything without duplicating effort, it behooves
> _you_ to discuss it on the mailing lists first.

Agreed.  I've just recently started looking at this issue for gdb and
so far am still just reading and tracing through the code that handles
frames since it has been a long time since I've worked in this area of
gdb.  Once I have a better handle on how things currently work I was
planning to post something to get a discussion going.

-Fred