Mirror of the gdb mailing list
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Andrew Cagney <ac131313@redhat.com>
To: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@mvista.com>
Cc: gdb@sources.redhat.com
Subject: Re: frame->unwind->this_base()
Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 15:24:00 -0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <3E788BB5.6010209@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20030319141142.GA20672@nevyn.them.org>


>> True dwarf2 debug info or that .eh_frame stuff (i'm curious)?
> 
> 
> Hmm, I thought it would write out .debug_frame without DWARF-2 but
> peering at the GCC source I seem to be wrong again.  So just .eh_frame.

So using .eh_frame is along the same lines as using ia64's libunwind. 
.eh_frame just happens to be implemented using something very like 
dwarf2's unwind code.

> In any case, we'll parse both, so I stand by my statement.  We'll have
> .eh_frame even without normal debug info.

I think there needs to be separate eh-frame and cfi-frame but with a 
common implementation.  That way the subtle, but important, differences 
are clear.

>> For stabs to work, it needs FRAME_LOCALS_ADDRESS(); and 
>> FRAME_LOCALS_ADDRESS() relies on the prologue analyzer (since frame ID 
>> won't correspond to `frame-base') for the computation of the correct 
>> value; and that means unwinding the same frame two ways.  Outch.
> 
> 
> Yeah...
>  - if we have CFI use it to find the frame address.  Does this
> become the frame ID?
>  - if we have dwarf2 debug and CFI, then we don't need to do prologue
> analysis; CFI should give us everything we need
>  - if we have stabs debug and CFI, then we do need to do prologue
> analysis to get FRAME_LOCALS_ADDRESS
>  - if we have either kind of debug info and no CFI then we need to do
> prologue analysis; for dwarf2 we'll also need to calculate the frame
> base from DW_AT_frame_base in order to use it to find locals
> 
> Is that about right?

Yes.  Try the following higher-level view of the problem:

On the left is the unwinder.  It exports methods to obtain the frame's 
ID and the registers.  It can be implemented using CFA, EH, libunwind, 
prologue analysis, ...; and the implementation is selected based on the 
low-level unwind information, or lack there of.

On the right is the local variable code and that needs a frame-base / 
frame-locals-address / ....  It uses high-level debug info and unwound 
register values to compute that base.  It can be implemented using 
dwarf2's frame_base, or prologue analysis (stabs), or ...; and the 
implementation is selected based on the frame's high-level debug info.

The mess occures when the high-level RHS frame-locals-address starts 
assuming the flavour of the low-level LHS unwinder and, consequently, 
tries to directly exploit that knowledge.  For instance, a RHS prologue 
based frame-locals-address assuming that the LHS is also prologue based, 
and hence, can directly access the LHS's prologue analysis cache.

It can be `fixed' two ways:

- refusing to allow that sharing of data, forcing the RHS 
frame-locals-address to re-analyze the prologue.

- make it possible to tease out the prologue analysis object so that 
both the LHS and RHS can share it.

I guess the second is it.

Andrew


  reply	other threads:[~2003-03-19 15:24 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 22+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2003-03-16 22:04 frame->unwind->this_base() Andrew Cagney
2003-03-16 22:10 ` frame->unwind->this_base() Daniel Jacobowitz
2003-03-17  0:09   ` frame->unwind->this_base() Andrew Cagney
2003-03-17  0:14     ` frame->unwind->this_base() Daniel Jacobowitz
2003-03-17 16:22       ` frame->unwind->this_base() Andrew Cagney
2003-03-17 16:38         ` frame->unwind->this_base() Daniel Jacobowitz
2003-03-17 16:56           ` frame->unwind->this_base() Andrew Cagney
2003-03-17 17:11             ` frame->unwind->this_base() Daniel Jacobowitz
2003-03-17 18:20               ` frame->unwind->this_base() Andrew Cagney
2003-03-17 19:35                 ` frame->unwind->this_base() Daniel Jacobowitz
2003-03-18  4:29                   ` frame->unwind->this_base() Andrew Cagney
2003-03-18  5:13                     ` frame->unwind->this_base() Daniel Jacobowitz
2003-03-18 15:22                       ` frame->unwind->this_base() Andrew Cagney
2003-03-18 16:38                         ` frame->unwind->this_base() Daniel Jacobowitz
2003-03-18 17:02                           ` frame->unwind->this_base() Andrew Cagney
2003-03-18 17:11                             ` frame->unwind->this_base() Daniel Jacobowitz
2003-03-18 17:28                               ` frame->unwind->this_base() Andrew Cagney
2003-03-18 17:38                                 ` frame->unwind->this_base() Daniel Jacobowitz
2003-03-18 20:22                                   ` frame->unwind->this_base() Andrew Cagney
2003-03-19 14:11                                     ` frame->unwind->this_base() Daniel Jacobowitz
2003-03-19 15:24                                       ` Andrew Cagney [this message]
2003-03-19 15:32                                         ` frame->unwind->this_base() 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=3E788BB5.6010209@redhat.com \
    --to=ac131313@redhat.com \
    --cc=drow@mvista.com \
    --cc=gdb@sources.redhat.com \
    /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