[RFA] remove some subtleties in find_block_in_blockvector
Doug Evans
dje@google.com
Tue Jun 5 00:09:00 GMT 2012
Hi.
This patch removes a subtlety in the handling of blocks.
The first two blocks are special.
Block 0 == GLOBAL_BLOCK, block 1 == STATIC_BLOCK.
The code in block.c:find_block_in_blockvector ignores this fact making the
code less clear than it could be.
Regression tested on amd64-linux.
Ok to commit?
2012-06-04 Doug Evans <dje@google.com>
* block.c (find_block_in_blockvector): Make explicit the fact that we
ignore GLOBAL_BLOCK.
Index: block.c
===================================================================
RCS file: /cvs/src/src/gdb/block.c,v
retrieving revision 1.31
diff -u -p -r1.31 block.c
--- block.c 18 May 2012 14:26:25 -0000 1.31
+++ block.c 4 Jun 2012 23:50:34 -0000
@@ -118,8 +118,13 @@ find_block_in_blockvector (struct blockv
return addrmap_find (BLOCKVECTOR_MAP (bl), pc);
/* Otherwise, use binary search to find the last block that starts
- before PC. */
- bot = 0;
+ before PC.
+ Note: GLOBAL_BLOCK is block 0, STATIC_BLOCK is block 1.
+ They both have the same START,END values.
+ Historically this code would choose STATIC_BLOCK over GLOBAL_BLOCK but the
+ fact that this choice was made was subtle, now we make it explicit. */
+ gdb_assert (BLOCKVECTOR_NBLOCKS (bl) >= 2);
+ bot = STATIC_BLOCK;
top = BLOCKVECTOR_NBLOCKS (bl);
while (top - bot > 1)
@@ -134,7 +139,7 @@ find_block_in_blockvector (struct blockv
/* Now search backward for a block that ends after PC. */
- while (bot >= 0)
+ while (bot >= STATIC_BLOCK)
{
b = BLOCKVECTOR_BLOCK (bl, bot);
if (BLOCK_END (b) > pc)
More information about the Gdb-patches
mailing list