This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: RFA: dwarf2read.c patch
- From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow at mvista dot com>
- To: "J. Johnston" <jjohnstn at redhat dot com>
- Cc: gdb-patches at sources dot redhat dot com
- Date: Mon, 5 May 2003 20:12:16 -0400
- Subject: Re: RFA: dwarf2read.c patch
- References: <3EB6E10A.50104@redhat.com>
On Mon, May 05, 2003 at 06:09:14PM -0400, J. Johnston wrote:
> The following patch fixes a problem on ia64. In dwarf2read.c,
> dwarf_decode_lines(), the function check_cu_functions() is called
> to check for a specific scenario caused by gcc.
>
> The function takes an address and returns an address. In some
> cases, it will return the lowpc value of the function rather than
> the address that was input.
>
> On the ia64, this causes problems because the line table info spit
> out by the compiler is often specified with relative addresses.
> As well, ia64 addresses are special as they encode a slot number which goes
> 0, 1, 2, then skips to the next quadword boundary. For example,
>
> 0x00, 0x01, 0x02, 0x10, 0x11, 0x12, 0x20, 0x21, 0x22, ...
>
> Addresses such as 0x0e or 0x0f are invalid and cause an error to
> occur if, say, a breakpoint was attempted to be inserted there.
>
> Now, in dwarf_decode_lines(), if we update the address counter when we call
> check_cu_functions(), adding relative offsets in subsequent entries often
> results in
> invalid addresses.
>
> This patch makes it so the check_cu_functions() call is only used to
> alter the address passed to record_line(); the calculated address is left
> untouched
> so subsequent relative operations result in valid results.
>
> Tested on ia64 and x86.
>
> Ok to commit?
I can't approve this, but I can say that that's certainly what I meant
to do with the check_cu_functions. I feel really dumb for not noticing
that I was corrupting the line state machine.
--
Daniel Jacobowitz
MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer