This is the mail archive of the mailing list for the GDB project.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

regcache (Re: GDB respin)

Andrew Cagney wrote:
Can someone post backtraces?

49 gdb.log:../../gdb-head/gdb/sentinel-frame.c:102: internal-error: Function sentinal_frame_pop called

Er, this should shouldn't happen. Backtrace?

3 gdb.log:../../gdb-head/gdb/regcache.c:713: internal-error: regcache_raw_read: Assertion `regcache != NULL && buf != NULL' failed.

Again, the caller is pretty messed up.

5 gdb.log:../../gdb-head/gdb/gdbarch.c:4271: internal-error: gdbarch: gdbarch_store_return_value invalid
2 gdb.log:&"../../gdb-head/gdb/gdbarch.c:4252: internal-error: gdbarch: gdbarch_extract_return_value invalid\n"
6 gdb.log:../../gdb-head/gdb/gdbarch.c:4252: internal-error: gdbarch: gdbarch_extract_return_value invalid
The problem on x86-64 is probably caused by the regbuf vs. regcache usage. This is a part of the patch that broke the testsuite:

diff -u -p -r1.33 -r1.34
--- gdb/x86-64-tdep.c 26 Oct 2002 10:37:45 -0000 1.33
+++ gdb/x86-64-tdep.c 26 Oct 2002 16:56:34 -0000 1.34
@@ -925,11 +925,35 @@ x86_64_init_abi (struct gdbarch_info inf
+ set_gdbarch_long_double_bit (gdbarch, 128);
+ set_gdbarch_ps_regnum (gdbarch, 17); /* %eflags */
+ set_gdbarch_stab_reg_to_regnum (gdbarch, x86_64_dwarf2_reg_to_regnum);
+ set_gdbarch_dwarf_reg_to_regnum (gdbarch, x86_64_dwarf2_reg_to_regnum);
+ set_gdbarch_extract_return_value (gdbarch, NULL);
+ set_gdbarch_store_return_value (gdbarch, NULL);
+ set_gdbarch_extract_struct_value_address (gdbarch, NULL);

If I comment out last three lines (those return_value related), the testsuite performs much better. But all the other lines seem have some influence on the results.

I'm about to convert x86-64 target to use regcache, but am not sure what must be done for it. Could someone please briefly explain me what is regcache all about and what must be changed in order to have the target regcache-compilant?

As I was looking to the sources I believe, that only x86_64_store_return_value() and x86_64_extract_return_value() must be modified. Am I right or not?


Michal Ludvig
* SuSE CR, s.r.o *
* (+420) 296.545.373 *

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]