[patch] STT_GNU_IFUNC support
Jan Kratochvil
jan.kratochvil@redhat.com
Wed Feb 17 18:12:00 GMT 2010
On Wed, 17 Feb 2010 18:55:10 +0100, Pedro Alves wrote:
> On Wednesday 17 February 2010 17:33:38, Jan Kratochvil wrote:
> > > > What about making this GNU-IFUNC inferior call scheduling follow the "step"
> > > > policy? Maybe the whole inferior calls should follow the "step" policy?
> > >
> > > Or "on", should be the same.
> >
> > Not so. I find "step" to be the reasonable default (and it has been so for
> > a long time before me in RHEL/Fedora) and I find GNU-IFUNC resolving with
> > locked scheduler also as a reasonable default. I do not find
> > "scheduler-locking on" as a reasonable GDB default.
>
> Oh, of course not. I was answering the first question,
> about the specific infcall to resolve "strcmp" when the
> user did "p strcmp" or "b strcmp". I assume you meant to
> sched-lock that call, which would be the same as "on",
> but maybe I misunderstood what you meant.
We agree on the significant part. The other part is offtopic for IFUNC.
Thanks,
Jan
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> A reply to
> the second question would be similar to
> the "That's another story." reply. ;-)
The "That's another story." part:
To make it whole more clear I would suggesting creating:
set scheduler-locking-continue (on|off)
set scheduler-locking-step (on|off)
mapping current settings -> the new scheme as:
set scheduler-locking on -> s-l-continue=on s-l-step=on
set scheduler-locking step -> s-l-continue=off s-l-step=on
set scheduler-locking off -> s-l-continue=off s-l-step=off
and introducing for infcall/gnu-ifunc new settings:
set scheduler-locking-infcall (on|off)
set scheduler-locking-gnu-ifunc (on|off)
Currently s-l-infcall behaves the same as s-l-continue.
IMO s-l-infcall should behave more the same as s-l-step.
More information about the Gdb-patches
mailing list