Re: [PATCH 0/4] Modernize frame unwinders and add disable feature

[Guinevere Larsen <blarsen@redhat.com>]

On 11/03/2024 15:56, Luis Machado wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 3/6/24 12:51, Guinevere Larsen wrote:
>> This patch series started with me trying to make it easier to test GDB's
>> ability to unwind using CFI data, to improve a previous patch I sent to
>> the list. However, once I finished these changes, I realized there was
>> an unrelated bug I should fix before proposing the CFI test. Since these
>> changes are significant enough already, and I think would be interesting
>> on their own, I figured I shoudl submit this patch series as is right
>> now while I figure out the other bug.
>>
>> The first patch is just a minor change, storing frame unwinders in a
>> vector instead of through an unwinder table accessible using the
>> registry system. This isn't required (like I originally thought it was),
>> but it does make the whole system more readable in my opinion.
>>
>> Patch 3 has the real meat of the modernization, making GDB use
>> polymorphism to handle frame unwinders. This is slightly slower than
>> using function pointers, but much more readable in my opinion.
>>
>> As for the unwinder classes, they were chosen somewhat arbitrarily,
>> mostly based on where I found an unwinder and its name. I almost expect
>> some unwinders to be mis-categorized, but that should be easy to fix.
>>
>> The changes up to patch 3 have been tested with a try-branch, no
>> regressions as far as I could see.
>>
>> Guinevere Larsen (4):
>>    gdb: make gdbarch store a vector of frame unwinders
>>    gdb: add "unwinder class" to frame unwinders
>>    gdb: Migrate frame unwinders to use C++ classes
>>    GDB: introduce ability to disable frame unwinders
> I haven't gone through the series in detail, but I thought I'd give it a try on one of the
> aarch64 machines I have access to. I didn't look particularly healthy:
>
>
> # of unexpected core files      47
> # of expected passes            116521
> # of unexpected failures        581
> # of expected failures          77
> # of known failures             116
> # of untested testcases         128
> # of unresolved testcases       1102
> # of unsupported tests          458
> # of duplicate test names       10
>
> I see a number of internal errors going on. Mostly like these:
>
>          ../../../repos/binutils-gdb/gdbsupport/errors.cc:58
> 0xaaaad27e7877 check_ptrace_stopped_lwp_gone
>          ../../../repos/binutils-gdb/gdb/linux-nat.c:1634
> 0xaaaad27e7877 check_ptrace_stopped_lwp_gone
>          ../../../repos/binutils-gdb/gdb/linux-nat.c:1630
> 0xaaaad2ae0fa3 linux_resume_one_lwp
>
Oh no! Linaro CI had showed something was wrong, but I wasn't able to 
grab an aarch64 machine to test yet. I'll check it out when I can, 
thanks for narrowing it down for me

-- 
Cheers,
Guinevere Larsen
She/Her/Hers