This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [RFA/RFC] fix problems with unwinder on mips-irix
Andrew,
> Yes, sometimes inlineing doesn't help, here it does. There's really no
> value in trying to preserve this code so be brutal.
Thanks a lot for the detailed message. Really appreciated. I'm trying to
find my way through all this. Let's first look at inlining find_proc_desc.
I'll work on the rest as soon as I have this one figured out.
Reading your last commit to this file, I discovered that you added frame
sniffers, so, if I understand correctly, we can now more or less predict
the circumstances under which find_proc_desc should be called (heuristic
vs non-heuristic). Is that right?
find_proc_desc is called by 4 routines:
1. mips_mdebug_frame_cache
/* Get the mdebug proc descriptor. */
proc_desc = find_proc_desc (frame_pc_unwind (next_frame), next_frame, 1);
In that case, I think this call can be replaced by a call to
non_heuristic_proc_desc? How about the handling this case:
/* IF this is the topmost frame AND
* (this proc does not have debugging information OR
* the PC is in the procedure prologue)
* THEN create a "heuristic" proc_desc (by analyzing
* the actual code) to replace the "official" proc_desc.
*/
2. mips_insn16_frame_cache
3. mips_insn32_frame_cache
In these two cases, the call to find_proc_desc can be reduced to
the case where the heuristics have to be used. You said it can be
inline using something like this:
if (startaddr == 0)
startaddr = heuristic_proc_start (pc);
proc_desc = heuristic_proc_desc (startaddr, pc, next_frame, cur_frame);
I see that linked_proc_desc_table is never used, which explains
why we can get rid of:
/* Is linked_proc_desc_table really necessary? It only seems to be used
by procedure call dummys. However, the procedures being called ought
to have their own proc_descs, and even if they don't,
heuristic_proc_desc knows how to create them! */
struct linked_proc_info *link;
for (link = linked_proc_desc_table; link; link = link->next)
if (PROC_LOW_ADDR (&link->info) <= pc
&& PROC_HIGH_ADDR (&link->info) > pc)
return &link->info;
4. after_prologue
So far so good. But there there is the case of after_prologue:
/* Pass cur_frame == 0 to find_proc_desc. We should not attempt
to read the stack pointer from the current machine state, because
the current machine state has nothing to do with the information
we need from the proc_desc; and the process may or may not exist
right now. */
if (!proc_desc)
proc_desc = find_proc_desc (pc, NULL, 0);
The only place where this function is called is in mips_skip_prologue:
CORE_ADDR post_prologue_pc = after_prologue (pc, NULL);
So arguably we could remove this extra parameter from
after_prologue. Should we do this?
Back to find_proc_desc, I suppose the above code should be replaced
by something like this:
if (!proc_desc)
proc_desc = non_heuristic_proc_desc (pc, &startaddr);
if (!proc_desc)
proc_desc = heuristic_proc_desc (pc);
Would that be right? Same question as in point 1 above, actually.
Thanks,
--
Joel