This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: RFA: Fix check for no-saved-pc
- From: Michael Snyder <msnyder at specifix dot com>
- To: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow at false dot org>
- Cc: gdb-patches at sourceware dot org, Mark Kettenis <mark dot kettenis at xs4all dot nl>
- Date: Mon, 03 Dec 2007 17:52:37 -0800
- Subject: Re: RFA: Fix check for no-saved-pc
- References: <1196462431.2501.164.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20071130230045.GA24809@caradoc.them.org> <1196473044.2501.189.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Mark, is the 2nd form of the patch acceptable to you?
On Fri, 2007-11-30 at 17:37 -0800, Michael Snyder wrote:
> On Fri, 2007-11-30 at 18:00 -0500, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 30, 2007 at 02:40:31PM -0800, Michael Snyder wrote:
> > > There's a check in get_prev_frame to see if the next saved pc
> > > is zero. I think it has an off-by-one error, and is checking
> > > for the pc of the wrong frame.
> >
> > Mark K. and I have had roughly a month's worth of discussion on this
> > check over the last two years; it's where it is on purpose. Here's
> > the last conversation:
> >
> > http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2006-05/msg00196.html
> > http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2006-07/msg00296.html
>
> All right. Then let's leave that test alone, and add another
> test, much later on, to detect and report this situation.
>
> Here's my revised patch. Testsuites un-affected.
>
> As before, the effect of this change is to have gdb print
> a more informative message instead of a meaningless zero-frame.
>
> 2007-11-30 Michael Snyder <msnyder@specifix.com>
>
> * frame.c (get_prev_frame): Remove unused local variable.
> (get_prev_frame_1): Check for null saved pc in the calling
> frame. Set up stop_reason conditions for printing stop reason.
>
> Index: frame.c
> ===================================================================
> RCS file: /cvs/src/src/gdb/frame.c,v
> retrieving revision 1.235
> diff -u -p -r1.235 frame.c
> --- frame.c 2 Nov 2007 14:47:27 -0000 1.235
> +++ frame.c 1 Dec 2007 01:30:01 -0000
> @@ -1248,6 +1248,16 @@ get_prev_frame_1 (struct frame_info *thi
> this_frame->prev = NULL;
> return NULL;
> }
> + /* Also check for a null saved_pc. At this point it can
> + only be a bad thing. */
> + if (frame_pc_unwind (this_frame) == 0)
> + {
> + frame_debug_got_null_frame (gdb_stdlog, this_frame,
> + "zero PC");
> + this_frame->stop_reason = UNWIND_NO_SAVED_PC;
> + this_frame->prev = NULL;
> + return NULL;
> + }
> }
>
> /* Allocate the new frame but do not wire it in to the frame chain.
> @@ -1355,8 +1365,6 @@ inside_entry_func (struct frame_info *th
> struct frame_info *
> get_prev_frame (struct frame_info *this_frame)
> {
> - struct frame_info *prev_frame;
> -
> /* Return the inner-most frame, when the caller passes in NULL. */
> /* NOTE: cagney/2002-11-09: Not sure how this would happen. The
> caller should have previously obtained a valid frame using
>
>