From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from gateway33.websitewelcome.com (gateway33.websitewelcome.com [192.185.145.4]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6CFA5385E024 for ; Thu, 26 Mar 2020 01:59:53 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 sourceware.org 6CFA5385E024 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=tromey.com Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=fail smtp.mailfrom=tom@tromey.com Received: from cm16.websitewelcome.com (cm16.websitewelcome.com [100.42.49.19]) by gateway33.websitewelcome.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D6C278DBAB for ; Wed, 25 Mar 2020 20:59:52 -0500 (CDT) Received: from box5379.bluehost.com ([162.241.216.53]) by cmsmtp with SMTP id HHoGjqkYQ8vkBHHoGjghfM; Wed, 25 Mar 2020 20:59:52 -0500 X-Authority-Reason: nr=8 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=tromey.com; s=default; h=Content-Type:MIME-Version:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:Date: References:Subject:Cc:To:From:Sender:Reply-To:Content-Transfer-Encoding: Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender: Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Id:List-Help:List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe:List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=sl+7qKPy/JFxObPOLyHCQiDuM7nroh9xedgUkz1/xCs=; b=unYUVGM8Xq7yrT9AZn2DHygCNv FbptwpPMSWgsEt1WreBSIvDunuCNYOVr9pnuVkZiil1eBfrd1T3ZpMbmc3UIEFPItUl8bVMdPb4Yf 6DG4CS3763v8MpqNwjrCpF1mc; Received: from 97-118-117-21.hlrn.qwest.net ([97.118.117.21]:59720 helo=bapiya) by box5379.bluehost.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1jHHoG-000GvE-Jb; Wed, 25 Mar 2020 19:59:52 -0600 From: Tom Tromey To: Luis Machado Cc: Tom Tromey , Tom Tromey , gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] Find tailcall frames before inline frames References: <20200220155820.22809-1-tromey@adacore.com> <87sgip6rk9.fsf@tromey.com> <665eda59-ae52-42f4-b3b2-e3a070036ca8@linaro.org> <8736adi7f5.fsf@tromey.com> <9b864a68-3c28-9c25-6e3d-252777143e52@linaro.org> X-Attribution: Tom Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2020 19:59:51 -0600 In-Reply-To: (Luis Machado's message of "Tue, 24 Mar 2020 18:24:03 -0300") Message-ID: <87blojdgfc.fsf@tromey.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/28.0.50 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - box5379.bluehost.com X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - sourceware.org X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12] X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - tromey.com X-BWhitelist: no X-Source-IP: 97.118.117.21 X-Source-L: No X-Exim-ID: 1jHHoG-000GvE-Jb X-Source: X-Source-Args: X-Source-Dir: X-Source-Sender: 97-118-117-21.hlrn.qwest.net (bapiya) [97.118.117.21]:59720 X-Source-Auth: tom+tromey.com X-Email-Count: 3 X-Source-Cap: ZWx5bnJvYmk7ZWx5bnJvYmk7Ym94NTM3OS5ibHVlaG9zdC5jb20= X-Local-Domain: yes X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, JMQ_SPF_NEUTRAL, RCVD_IN_ABUSEAT, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2, SPF_HELO_PASS, SPF_NEUTRAL, TXREP autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on server2.sourceware.org X-BeenThere: gdb-patches@sourceware.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Gdb-patches mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2020 01:59:55 -0000 >>>>> "Luis" == Luis Machado writes: Luis> Having spent a few days trying to understand this problem, it seems Luis> all of these fi->level assertions (including Luis> https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22748) are related to Luis> attempting to unwind from places not safe to do so. That is, we're Luis> trying to unwind some content (registers for example) before a given Luis> frame is assigned a frame id. Yes, I agree. Luis> I think dwarf2_tailcall_sniffer_first would have to be called from Luis> somewhere else, or conditions put in place. But I'm afraid adding more Luis> conditions would complicate things further. And this code is already Luis> reasonably complicated. Luis> Since this is causing a number of inlining test failures for aarch64 Luis> and, from what i saw, some other architectures like s390, should we Luis> consider reverting this while we discuss/review a reworked version of Luis> the patch? I think that would be fine. I haven't found the time to really dig into it. I suspect that maybe the architectures doing this aren't playing by the rules. Even so, though, it doesn't change that this used to work and now doesn't. Tom