[Bug gdb/31254] [gdb, arm] FAIL: gdb.threads/staticthreads.exp: up 10

["tdevries at suse dot de" <sourceware-bugzilla@sourceware.org>]

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31254

--- Comment #21 from tdevries at suse dot de ---
On 2/1/24 19:32, thiago.bauermann at linaro dot org wrote:
> https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31254
> 
> --- Comment #20 from Thiago Jung Bauermann <thiago.bauermann at linaro dot org> ---
> (In reply to Tom de Vries from comment #18)
>> (In reply to Thiago Jung Bauermann from comment #17)
>>> I'll see if I can make arm-tdep.c add a hook in objfiles_changed () so that
>>> it can detect that the objfiles where reloaded and re-read the exception
>>> tables. Or perhaps it's cleaner to convert objfiles_changed () into an
>>> observer.
>>
>> I triggered the reread using "shell touch <file>" in the gdb script, and
>> then set a breakpoint on arm_exidx_new_objfile.  It triggered on the file
>> command, and on the reread at run command.  So I'm not sure this approach is
>> necessary.
> 
> Thanks for checking.
> 
>> Perhaps we're looking at a regression since this commit:
>> ...
>> commit a2726d4ff80168a8134c68cb798e3f5f537b0eba
>> Author: Luis Machado <luis.machado@linaro.org>
>> Date:   Thu Oct 31 16:30:44 2019 -0300
>>
>>      [ARM] Store exception handling information per-bfd instead of per-objfile
>> ...
>>
>> I wonder if this fixes it:
>> ...
>> diff --git a/gdb/arm-tdep.c b/gdb/arm-tdep.c
>> index ecffb9223e1..4f68af75a4b 100644
>> --- a/gdb/arm-tdep.c
>> +++ b/gdb/arm-tdep.c
>> @@ -2704,7 +2704,7 @@ arm_exidx_new_objfile (struct objfile *objfile)
>>         if (n_bytes || n_words)
>>   	{
>>   	  gdb_byte *p = entry
>> -	    = (gdb_byte *) obstack_alloc (&objfile->objfile_obstack,
>> +	    = (gdb_byte *) obstack_alloc (&objfile->per_bfd->storage_obstack,
>>   					  n_bytes + n_words * 4 + 1);
>>   
>>   	  while (n_bytes--)
>> ...
> 
> Indeed it does! I was previously reproducing the problem in the first few
> tries.
> The loop has been running the testcase for more than 200 times now and it
> always passes.
> 
> Thank you for the patch! Will you post it on the mailing list?
> 

I could look into that starting say, Monday (attending FOSDEM), but if 
you can't wait that long feel free to submit.

Thanks,
- Tom

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.