From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 101429 invoked by alias); 8 Jan 2020 13:03:24 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sourceware.org Received: (qmail 101416 invoked by uid 89); 8 Jan 2020 13:03:23 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-26.4 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM,FSL_HELO_FAKE,GIT_PATCH_0,GIT_PATCH_1,GIT_PATCH_2,GIT_PATCH_3,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 spammy= X-HELO: mail-lj1-f194.google.com Received: from mail-lj1-f194.google.com (HELO mail-lj1-f194.google.com) (209.85.208.194) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Wed, 08 Jan 2020 13:03:22 +0000 Received: by mail-lj1-f194.google.com with SMTP id z22so3271073ljg.1 for ; Wed, 08 Jan 2020 05:03:21 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:mime-version:content-description :content-disposition:in-reply-to; bh=gKL0erXZEevB4ha8xFd1c1awDWrz5SUzmVTTxtLhFDY=; b=HUGg9+2lXwBuT3Nw1/B4dssls8l0gegIYF4BGH6maZCAZ87WUKkWBCrcrY1bW6fmPp 6vGg1YT8NhxCglA6F/Vgs5IpkkrCtM1c93RsJ+llOUovY9uGBjTKgg5FJpVk8iBsEMHN 0VTDCwI0K4Jw8mlGHbQoPcpvxz8rXqHmH0w6CxKAIA5yUq779dPcSS9/7Mhwg5O21oZC 0Um7fUsFH1HDA7VPdf8uPhGIiFVuQYTzcucJNqXGYo8UtS1HGGCtU3f0SEAg54bop3UY fzERAgGf6vfv+4AjraMTi/NaflQ/K7PkoNfPFOr+vb1LgZ7ouoCRA45/9ZO1G+OdqYGc BkKA== Return-Path: Received: from gmail.com ([2a03:1b20:6:f011::2d]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id x84sm1362556lfa.97.2020.01.08.05.03.17 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Wed, 08 Jan 2020 05:03:18 -0800 (PST) Date: Wed, 08 Jan 2020 13:03:00 -0000 From: Shahab Vahedi To: gdb@sourceware.org Cc: Andrew Burgess , Pedro Alves Subject: Re: Getting rid of "Cannot access memory at address ..." Message-ID: <20200108130316.GB3752@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Description: propose Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20200104120749.GA166189@gmail.com> X-SW-Source: 2020-01/txt/msg00012.txt.bz2 After talking with Andrew, it seemes a possible solution could be using try/catch to catch the usual suspect (a.k.a. MEMORY_ERROR): Please let me know what you think of this change? diff --git a/gdb/tui/tui-disasm.c b/gdb/tui/tui-disasm.c index 98c691f3387..7faaa45f039 100644 --- a/gdb/tui/tui-disasm.c +++ b/gdb/tui/tui-disasm.c @@ -226,7 +226,18 @@ tui_disasm_window::set_contents (struct gdbarch *arch, /* Get temporary table that will hold all strings (addr & insn). */ std::vector asm_lines (max_lines); size_t addr_size = 0; - tui_disassemble (gdbarch, asm_lines, pc, 0, max_lines, &addr_size); + try + { + tui_disassemble (gdbarch, asm_lines, pc, 0, max_lines, &addr_size); + } + catch (const gdb_exception &except) + { + /* In cases where max_lines is asking tui_disassemble() to fetch + too much, like when PC goes past the valid address range, a + MEMORY_ERROR is thrown, but it is alright. */ + if (except.error != MEMORY_ERROR) + throw; + } /* Align instructions to the same column. */ insn_pos = (1 + (addr_size / tab_len)) * tab_len; My only concern is what if we have MEMORY_ERROR exception for reasons other than disassembling PC addresses that just went beyond the valid range. Do such reasons exist in this scenario? -- Shahab