This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [PATCH] Fix signals.exp test case on S/390
- From: Ulrich Weigand <weigand at i1 dot informatik dot uni-erlangen dot de>
- To: cagney at gnu dot org (Andrew Cagney)
- Cc: weigand at i1 dot informatik dot uni-erlangen dot de (Ulrich Weigand), gdb-patches at sources dot redhat dot com
- Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2004 18:11:00 +0100 (CET)
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix signals.exp test case on S/390
Andrew Cagney wrote:
> > It will run into the first if, and simply use step_frame_id,
> > which is wrong in this case. That's why my patch add another
> > condition to the first if, to make it not taken and actually
> > use the (correct) get_prev_frame case.
>
> Where is step_frame_id pointing?
To the function that was interrupted by the signal (i.e. the
function where I entered 'next').
> Anyway, I think this code:
> > if (frame_id_p (step_frame_id)
> > && !IN_SOLIB_DYNSYM_RESOLVE_CODE (sr_sal.pc))
> > /* NOTE: cagney/2004-02-27: Use the global state's idea of the
> > stepping frame ID. I suspect this is done as it is lighter
> > weight than a call to get_prev_frame. */
> > sr_id = step_frame_id;
> should simply be deleted. I wondered about it and you've just confirmed
> my suspicions. With that code gone is half the problem solved?
Yes, deleting this works just fine for me, in fact ...
> That leaves the other problem, which is much harder :-(
... it even solves the other problem as well!
The reason for this is that the whole problematic if
that uses frame_id_inner becomes irrelevant:
if (pc_in_sigtramp (stop_pc)
&& frame_id_inner (step_frame_id,
frame_id_build (read_sp (), 0)))
/* We stepped out of a signal handler, and into its
calling trampoline. This is misdetected as a
subroutine call, but stepping over the signal
trampoline isn't such a bad idea. In order to do that,
we have to ignore the value in step_frame_id, since
that doesn't represent the frame that'll reach when we
return from the signal trampoline. Otherwise we'll
probably continue to the end of the program. */
step_frame_id = null_frame_id;
step_over_function (ecs);
With those lines in step_over_function deleted, step_over_function
does not care about step_frame_id at all any more, and thus there
is no need to fiddle with step_frame_id here ...
> > Finally, the patch below reintroduces a pc_in_sigtramp
> > gdbarch callback to s390-tdep.c; I had thought this would
> > be no longer necessary when using the new frame code, but
> > apparently there's still other users ...
>
> Yes, it shouldn't be needed. get_frame_type == SIGTRAMP_FRAME is
> sufficient. work-in-progress.
Actually, when deleting the lines in step_over_function, it turns
out that I don't need pc_in_sigtramp any more ...
Summing up: after completely reverting my patch, and simply
deleting those lines, I get a gdb that passes signals.exp
(and has no test suite regressions), and also handles stepping
out of a signal handler correctly.
Bye,
Ulrich
--
Dr. Ulrich Weigand
weigand@informatik.uni-erlangen.de