This is the mail archive of the gdb-cvs@sourceware.org mailing list for the GDB project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

gdb and binutils branch gdb-7.8-branch updated. f7f4b7afaa717a83e9eaf157a8870c99978f2942


This is an automated email from the git hooks/post-receive script. It was
generated because a ref change was pushed to the repository containing
the project "gdb and binutils".

The branch, gdb-7.8-branch has been updated
       via  f7f4b7afaa717a83e9eaf157a8870c99978f2942 (commit)
      from  c201aa9323dc01f782d1db2607aa9e69d6bf90df (commit)

Those revisions listed above that are new to this repository have
not appeared on any other notification email; so we list those
revisions in full, below.

- Log -----------------------------------------------------------------
https://sourceware.org/git/gitweb.cgi?p=binutils-gdb.git;h=f7f4b7afaa717a83e9eaf157a8870c99978f2942

commit f7f4b7afaa717a83e9eaf157a8870c99978f2942
Author: Yao Qi <yao@codesourcery.com>
Date:   Mon Jul 28 13:44:57 2014 +0800

    Fix PR 17206
    
    As reported in PR 17206, an internal error is triggered when command
    until is executed.  In infcmd.c:until_next_command, step_range_end is
    set to 'pc',
    
      if (!func)
        {
          struct bound_minimal_symbol msymbol = lookup_minimal_symbol_by_pc (pc);
    
          if (msymbol.minsym == NULL)
    	error (_("Execution is not within a known function."));
    
          tp->control.step_range_start = BMSYMBOL_VALUE_ADDRESS (msymbol);
          tp->control.step_range_end = pc;
        }
    
    and later in infrun.c:resume, the assert below is triggered in PR
    17206.
    
      if (tp->control.may_range_step)
        {
          /* If we're resuming a thread with the PC out of the step
    	 range, then we're doing some nested/finer run control
    	 operation, like stepping the thread out of the dynamic
    	 linker or the displaced stepping scratch pad.  We
    	 shouldn't have allowed a range step then.  */
          gdb_assert (pc_in_thread_step_range (pc, tp));
        }
    
    In until_next_command, we set step range to [XXX, pc), so pc isn't
    within the range.  pc_in_thread_step_range returns false and the
    assert is triggered.  AFAICS, the range we want in until_next_command
    is [XXX, pc] instead of [XXX, pc), because we want to program step
    until greater than pc.  This patch is to set step_range_end to
    'pc + 1'.  Running until-nodebug.exp with unpatched GDB will get the
    following fail,
    
    FAIL: gdb.base/until-nodebug.exp: until 2 (GDB internal error)
    
    and the fail goes away when the fix is applied.
    
    gdb:
    
    2014-07-29  Yao Qi  <yao@codesourcery.com>
    
    	PR gdb/17206
    	* infcmd.c (until_next_command): Set step_range_end to PC + 1.
    
    gdb/testsuite:
    
    2014-07-29  Yao Qi  <yao@codesourcery.com>
    
    	PR gdb/17206
    	* gdb.base/until-nodebug.exp: New.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Summary of changes:
 gdb/ChangeLog                                      |    5 ++++
 gdb/infcmd.c                                       |    4 ++-
 gdb/testsuite/ChangeLog                            |    5 ++++
 .../{source-execution.exp => until-nodebug.exp}    |   24 +++++++++++--------
 4 files changed, 27 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
 copy gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/{source-execution.exp => until-nodebug.exp} (60%)


hooks/post-receive
-- 
gdb and binutils


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]