[PATCH] Sanitize gdbarch access on probe/SDT API
Pedro Alves
palves@redhat.com
Fri Dec 6 16:00:00 GMT 2013
On 12/06/2013 03:49 PM, Sergio Durigan Junior wrote:
>> > With that out of the way, would it work to pass the frame pointer down
>> >instead of the gdbarch?
> You mean that the callers should pass the frame pointers, instead of the
> relying on the callees to get it by themselves?
Something like that. I meant, the patch added a gdbarch parameter to
a few functions, and then passes get_frame_arch (frame) down.
fetch_probe_arguments (struct value **arg0, struct value **arg1)
{
struct frame_info *frame = get_selected_frame (_("No frame selected"));
+ struct gdbarch *gdbarch = get_frame_arch (frame);
CORE_ADDR pc = get_frame_pc (frame);
struct probe *pc_probe;
const struct sym_probe_fns *pc_probe_fns;
...
+ *arg0 = pc_probe_fns->sym_evaluate_probe_argument (pc_probe, 0, gdbarch);
+ *arg1 = pc_probe_fns->sym_evaluate_probe_argument (pc_probe, 1, gdbarch);
etc. etc. I'm wondering whether after making that spot discussed
use the probe's obfile's arch, which I think already it has handy
through the probe pointer, we can pass down the frame pointer instead
of the gdbarch pointer:
fetch_probe_arguments (struct value **arg0, struct value **arg1)
{
struct frame_info *frame = get_selected_frame (_("No frame selected"));
CORE_ADDR pc = get_frame_pc (frame);
struct probe *pc_probe;
const struct sym_probe_fns *pc_probe_fns;
...
+ *arg0 = pc_probe_fns->sym_evaluate_probe_argument (pc_probe, 0, frame);
+ *arg1 = pc_probe_fns->sym_evaluate_probe_argument (pc_probe, 1, frame);
etc. That would make the intention of the code clearer, I think, as
that way we don't need to explain that much what the gdbarch is for,
and where it must come from.
--
Pedro Alves
More information about the Gdb-patches
mailing list