This is the mail archive of the gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com mailing list for the GDB project.
| Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
|---|---|---|
| Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |
| Other format: | [Raw text] | |
Hello,
I was trying to understand the source of the following problem
(extracted from call-rt-st.exp):
(gdb) p print_struct_rep (*struct1)
Contents of struct1:
22 0
dummy-frame.c:304: internal-error: dummy_frame_prev_register: Assertion `dummy != NULL' failed.
A problem internal to GDB has been detected,
further debugging may prove unreliable.
Quit this debugging session? (y or n) n
dummy-frame.c:304: internal-error: dummy_frame_prev_register: Assertion `dummy != NULL' failed.
A problem internal to GDB has been detected,
further debugging may prove unreliable.
Create a core file of GDB? (y or n) n
dummy-frame.c:304: internal-error: dummy_frame_prev_register: Assertion `dummy != NULL' failed.
A problem internal to GDB has been detected,
further debugging may prove unreliable.
Quit this debugging session? (y or n) n
dummy-frame.c:304: internal-error: dummy_frame_prev_register: Assertion `dummy != NULL' failed.
A problem internal to GDB has been detected,
further debugging may prove unreliable.
Create a core file of GDB? (y or n) n
The assertion fails because we fail to locate the dummy_frame
in our dummy_frame_stack. The reason for the failure is that
the TOS stored in the dummy_frame we saved is different from
the stack_addr of the frame_id we built for the dummy_frame.
It's off by a few bytes.
The stack_addr for the dummy frame is computed by reading the Stack
Pointer register. The TOS value is the value of SP after the dummy
frame has been pushed.
If I understand correctly how this is all supposed to work, I think
we simply forgot to update the value of the SP register. Because the
function doesn't read its parameters from the stack (the struct is
passed via 2 registers), we don't see any noticeable effect on the
execution of the function we called. However, when we reach our
end-of-inferior-function-call, the value of the SP is back to the
original value, which doesn't match the saved TOS.
2004-04-30 J. Brobecker <brobecker@gnat.com>
* hppa-tdep.c (hppa32_push_dummy_call): Set the Stack Pointer.
(hppa64_push_dummy_call): Likewise.
The change has been tested on hppa32-hpux11.00, and it fixes roughly
500 regressions (yay! :-). It also brings the duration of the testsuite
run from several hours down to about 45 mins.
I didn't test the change for hppa64, but it seems pretty obvious if
the hppa32 one is correct.
OK to apply?
Thanks,
--
Joel
PS: My main objective is to get the frame code stable enough so that
the patch I was working on to detect that we stopped inside a
function call using frame IDs works without regressions on HP/UX.
I didn't realize I would open such a can of worms when I first
started on this path... :-/
Attachment:
hppa-tdep.c.diff
Description: Text document
| Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
|---|---|---|
| Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |