This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: RFA: tolerate unavailable struct return values
Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
>
> On Fri, Nov 30, 2001 at 03:49:52PM -0500, Jim Blandy wrote:
> >
> > Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@mvista.com> writes:
> > > On Thu, Nov 29, 2001 at 05:09:13PM -0500, Jim Blandy wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On some architectures, it's impossible for GDB to find structs
> > > > returned by value. These shouldn't be failures. Should they be
> > > > passes?
> > >
> > > Out of curiousity, which architectures? And to be pedantic, I suspect
> > > that it might be "not always possible" rather than actually
> > > impossible.
> >
> > The one I have in mind is the S/390, although I'm pretty sure there
> > are others. I've included the bug report I sent to the S/390 GCC
> > maintainers below.
> >
> > One approach would be to hope that the return buffer's address was
> > still there in the register it was passed in. But there's no way to
> > tell when you're wrong. GDB will just print garbage, and the user
> > will think their program is wrong. Better to simply say, "I can't
> > find this information reliably", and let the user, who knows their
> > program, find another way to get the info --- setting a breakpoint on
> > the return statement, or looking at where the caller put the
> > structure.
>
> Hmmmm. I wonder if MIPS could ever be affected by this? I don't think
> the MIPS ABI specifies that $a0 remains live. It looks as if the value
> of $a0 is always returned in $v0 in such functions, though.
It's not an uncommon problem, and I imagine we get it wrong a lot of the time.