public inbox for gdb-prs@sourceware.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "simon.marchi at polymtl dot ca" <sourceware-bugzilla@sourceware.org>
To: gdb-prs@sourceware.org
Subject: [Bug gdb/16481] New: Python finish breakpoint does not work with a mix of inlined and tailcalled functions
Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2014 22:51:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <bug-16481-4717@http.sourceware.org/bugzilla/> (raw)
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16481
Bug ID: 16481
Summary: Python finish breakpoint does not work with a mix of
inlined and tailcalled functions
Product: gdb
Version: HEAD
Status: NEW
Severity: normal
Priority: P2
Component: gdb
Assignee: unassigned at sourceware dot org
Reporter: simon.marchi at polymtl dot ca
This may seem a little far fetched, but I hit this while trying to track memory
allocations with a python script. I put a Python breakpoint on __libc_malloc,
which in turn sets a finish breakpoint so that I can get the pointer to the
allocated region. I noticed that some times, the finish breakpoint is never
hit.
I put up a very simple test case here:
https://gist.github.com/simark/8548964
Compile with
$ gcc -g test.c -O3
Run with
$ gdb -x finish.py a.out
As the name describe, hopefully_inlined is inlined, hopefully_tailcalled is
tailcalled (did I just invent a verb?).
The python script sets a breakpoint on the hopefully_notinlined function, which
instanciantes a finish breakpoint. On exit of the function, we should see "I am
here", but we don't.
I diagnosed the problem, and something wrong seems to happen here:
https://sourceware.org/git/gitweb.cgi?p=binutils-gdb.git;a=blob;f=gdb/breakpoint.c;h=c8e7e8842e2ed418d78b23c466018c88bb5e2aae;hb=HEAD#l5172
>From what I understand, for kinds of breakpoints where it makes sens, GDB
checks that the current stack frame is the same as when the breakpoint was set.
For the breakpoint to cause a stop, they have to match. The comparison in this
case returns false. One of the frames has its artifical_depth to zero while the
other has it to one. I am not sure which one is right, but I think that they
should be equal...
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
next reply other threads:[~2014-01-21 22:51 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-01-21 22:51 simon.marchi at polymtl dot ca [this message]
2014-01-21 22:58 ` [Bug python/16481] " simon.marchi at polymtl dot ca
2023-12-15 19:59 ` ssbssa at sourceware dot org
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=bug-16481-4717@http.sourceware.org/bugzilla/ \
--to=sourceware-bugzilla@sourceware.org \
--cc=gdb-prs@sourceware.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).