[rfa] frame address size incorrect if address size != ptr size
Corinna Vinschen
vinschen@redhat.com
Thu Aug 5 14:30:00 GMT 2010
On Aug 5 16:07, Ulrich Weigand wrote:
> Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> > [...]
> > If not, I would prefer a solution like this:
> >
> > - If version > 4, use addr_size from .debug_frame section
> > - Otherwise, if we can fetch the target address size from the CU
> > header, use it.
> > - Otherwise, if the target defined gdbarch_dwarf2_addr_size, use it.
> > - Otherwise, default to gdbarch_addr_bit for .debug_frame sections
> > and to gdbarch_ptr_bit for .eh_frame sections.
>
> As I said, finding the .debug_info may be difficult. Also, I'd really
> avoid getting another dependency on gdbarch_addr_bit in there; the point
> of having a new callback is exactly to avoid overloading addr_bit with
> more and more (possibly) different meanings.
>
> I'd rather just have gdbarch_dwarf2_addr_size default unconditionally
> to gdbarch_ptr_bit. In dwarf2-frame we'd then simply use the embedded
> addr_size if version >= 4, and gdbarch_dwarf2_addr_size otherwise.
> Platforms where ptr_bit is not appropriate simply need to define
> gdbarch_dwarf2_addr_size -- since this list is very short, and defining
> gdbarch_dwarf2_addr_size correctly is very simple (you just need to look
> at the definition of DWARF2_ADDR_SIZE in the corresponding GCC back-end),
> that doesn't seem like an unreasonable restriction to me ...
>
> > > As a side note, it seems odd that add_size is set in those two
> > > different locations here. The first one is always overwritten
> > > by the second one anyway, isn't it?
> >
> > There's an early return statement after checking the version number.
> > That indicates a failure anyway, so it might be ok to set addr_size
> > only once, at the second spot (lines 1779ff).
>
> Yes, that sounds right to me.
Ok, I agree with all you say above.
I'm going to create a patch which defines and uses a new
gdbarch_dwarf2_addr_size function. It will be defined as a variable
like this in gdbarch.sh:
v:int:dwarf2_addr_size:::sizeof (void*):0:gdbarch_ptr_bit (gdbarch) / TARGET_CHAR_BIT:
Given that, and also given that I will remove the redundant setting of
cie->addr_size in decode_frame_entry_1, I have one question left.
What about that comment in decode_frame_entry_1?
If we only use either the V4 addr_size, or the gdbarch_dwarf2_addr_size
function, then the comment really doesn't make much sense anymore in that
spot. I'm wondering if it should be moved to the gdbarch.sh file. What
do you think?
Corinna
--
Corinna Vinschen
Cygwin Project Co-Leader
Red Hat
More information about the Gdb-patches
mailing list