From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 4318 invoked by alias); 14 Jun 2005 15:27:39 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 4254 invoked by uid 22791); 14 Jun 2005 15:27:28 -0000 Received: from nevyn.them.org (HELO nevyn.them.org) (66.93.172.17) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.30-dev) with ESMTP; Tue, 14 Jun 2005 15:27:28 +0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 4.50) id 1DiDK2-0001Ke-5r; Tue, 14 Jun 2005 11:27:26 -0400 Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2005 15:27:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Vladimir Prus Cc: gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: problem debugging assembler functions Message-ID: <20050614152726.GA5039@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Vladimir Prus , gdb@sources.redhat.com References: <200506141854.04712.ghost@cs.msu.su> <20050614145808.GA4100@nevyn.them.org> <200506141919.22749.ghost@cs.msu.su> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200506141919.22749.ghost@cs.msu.su> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.8i X-SW-Source: 2005-06/txt/msg00136.txt.bz2 On Tue, Jun 14, 2005 at 07:19:21PM +0400, Vladimir Prus wrote: > Do you mean prologue analysis for assembler modules? For C++ modules DWARF2 > info contains everything. > > Well, I don't need to analyse prologue for assembler modules at all, because > if I understand correctly it's only needed to proper unwind stack, and I have > a much better way for stack unwinding. My target is actually a simulator, so > I just store register values on each call instruction and can fetch them via > extended version of "get registers" remote protocol command. It was an example of something which will go wrong without any symbols; this is an assumption in GDB. I bet you'll encounter it again elsewhere. > So, moving 'find_pc_line' above will reasult in extra lookup only if > - the command is stepi/nexti, or > - the first condition evaluates to true (which means we've entered > undebuggable code) > > I have no idea is that's bad or not performance-wise, just clarifying what's > going on. Hmm, that's encouraging! This might be a good improvement, then. > > It does seem plausible, but it would > > need wider testing. > > Ok. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery, LLC