This is the mail archive of the
gdb@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: Variable "foo" is not available
On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 08:10:00AM +0300, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> > Date: Sat, 2 Apr 2005 16:05:42 -0500
> > From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org>
> > Cc: gdb@sources.redhat.com, Reiner.Steib@gmx.de
> >
> > > We are talking about function call arguments here, not just about any
> > > local variables. Can you tell what compiler optimizations could cause
> > > what Reiner reported: that the first argument is available to GDB, but
> > > the second is not?
> >
> > Very easily. Suppose you have two incoming arguments in registers; GCC
> > will do this automatically for static functions even on i386, which
> > normally uses a stack convention. The first is used after a function
> > call, so it is preserved by saving it to the stack. The second is not
> > used after the function call, so the compiler has no reason to allocate
> > a save slot for it, and no reason to store it to memory before the
> > function call.
>
> The functions present in Reiner's backtraces are not static, they are
> external, with the exception of funcall_lambda. I don't have access
> to an x86_64 machine, but at least on an IA32 x86 architecture the
> code produced by GCC 3.4.3 for these function calls is quite
> straightforward (see one example below), and with GDB 6.3 I couldn't
> reproduce the "arg not available" message.
He gave us the missing clue in a later message - as Mark wrote, on
x86_64, the arguments are in registers. This means the compiler must
explicitly save them.
> > With stack-based argument passing, GCC may be claiming an argument is
> > unavailable when the function's local copy is dead, when a copy still
> > exists on the stack somewhere. I don't know if it will do that or not.
> > GDB can not assume that the argument is available in the incoming stack
> > slot, since it could be reused for other data.
>
> What, if any, would be the expression of this in the machine code?
My x86 assembly is awful, so I tried to derive this from gcc output.
The version of GCC I have installed will generate debug information
referring to the incoming argument slot, which I didn't expect it to
do. So this is probably a non-issue.
> Also, I don't quite understand how can a stack slot of a function call
> argument be reused before the function returns. Isn't that slot
> outside the function's frame? Reusing it would be a violation of the
> ABI, right?
Actually, I don't think it would be. This has been the subject of
considerable debate on the linux-kernel list in the past; GCC will
sometimes modify these slots and the final consesnsus was that it was
within its rights to do so.
int foo();
int foo2 (int *);
int bar(int a)
{
foo ();
a += 3;
foo2 (&a);
return a + foo();
}
0: 55 push %ebp
1: 89 e5 mov %esp,%ebp
3: 83 ec 08 sub $0x8,%esp
6: e8 fc ff ff ff call 7 <bar+0x7>
b: 83 45 08 03 addl $0x3,0x8(%ebp)
f: 8d 45 08 lea 0x8(%ebp),%eax
12: 89 04 24 mov %eax,(%esp)
15: e8 fc ff ff ff call 16 <bar+0x16>
1a: e8 fc ff ff ff call 1b <bar+0x1b>
1f: 8b 55 08 mov 0x8(%ebp),%edx
22: 89 ec mov %ebp,%esp
24: 5d pop %ebp
25: 01 d0 add %edx,%eax
27: c3 ret
See the instruction at 0xb?
GCC won't reuse the slot for an unrelated variable at present.
However, in the future, it would be a valid optimization.
--
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery, LLC