Re: ProcessRecord problem with recursion

[Hui Zhu <teawater at gmail dot com>]

Thanks Marc,

That is a very cool test code.

4	  return result;
0x0804844e <_Z9factoriali+42>:	mov    -0x4(%ebp),%eax
0x08048451 <_Z9factoriali+45>:	mov    %eax,-0x14(%ebp)
0x08048454 <_Z9factoriali+48>:	mov    -0x14(%ebp),%eax
(gdb) rn
infrun: clear_proceed_status_thread (process 9955)
infrun: proceed (addr=0xffffffff, signal=144, step=1)
infrun: resume (step=1, signal=0), trap_expected=0
infrun: wait_for_inferior (treat_exec_as_sigtrap=0)
infrun: target_wait (-1, status) =
infrun:   9955 [process 9955],
infrun:   status->kind = stopped, signal = SIGTRAP
infrun: infwait_normal_state
infrun: TARGET_WAITKIND_STOPPED
infrun: stop_pc = 0x804844b
infrun: keep going
infrun: resume (step=1, signal=0), trap_expected=0
infrun: prepare_to_wait
infrun: target_wait (-1, status) =
infrun:   9955 [process 9955],
infrun:   status->kind = stopped, signal = SIGTRAP
infrun: infwait_normal_state
infrun: TARGET_WAITKIND_STOPPED
infrun: stop_pc = 0x8048447
infrun: stepping inside range [0x8048439-0x804844e]
infrun: resume (step=1, signal=0), trap_expected=0
infrun: prepare_to_wait
infrun: target_wait (-1, status) =
infrun:   9955 [process 9955],
infrun:   status->kind = stopped, signal = SIGTRAP
infrun: infwait_normal_state
infrun: TARGET_WAITKIND_STOPPED
infrun: stop_pc = 0x8048458
infrun: keep going
infrun: resume (step=1, signal=0), trap_expected=0
infrun: prepare_to_wait
infrun: target_wait (-1, status) =
infrun:   9955 [process 9955],
infrun:   status->kind = stopped, signal = SIGTRAP
infrun: infwait_normal_state
infrun: TARGET_WAITKIND_STOPPED
infrun: stop_pc = 0x8048457
infrun: stepping inside range [0x8048457-0x804845a]
infrun: stop_stepping
factorial (x=4) at b.cc:5
5	}
0x08048457 <_Z9factoriali+51>:	leave
0x08048458 <_Z9factoriali+52>:	ret
0x08048459:	nop


I had reproduced it.  I think this issue is about reverse execute.  I
will try to deal with it.

Thanks,
Hui



On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 09:13, Marc Khouzam <marc.khouzam@ericsson.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm having problems with ProcessRecord and recursion.
> It looks like the reverse-next operation behaves like
> reverse-step when dealing with a recursive method.
>
> I have GDB HEAD from the 18th of March, with the patches included in
> http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2009-03/msg00375.html
> http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2009-03/msg00005.html
> http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2009-01/msg00444.html
>
> Here is a program and session that shows the problem:
>
> GNU gdb (GDB) 6.8.50.20090318-cvs
> [...]
> (gdb) l
> 1 ? ? ? int factorial(int x) {
> 2 ? ? ? ? ?if (x == 1) return 1;
> 3 ? ? ? ? ?int result = x * factorial(x-1);
> 4 ? ? ? ? ?return result;
> 5 ? ? ? }
> 6
> 7 ? ? ? int main() {
> 8 ? ? ? ? ? factorial(5);
> 9 ? ? ? ? ? return 0;
> 10 ? ? ?}
> (gdb) start
> Temporary breakpoint 1 at 0x804847b: file a.cc, line 8.
> Starting program: /local/home/lmckhou/testing/a.out
>
> Temporary breakpoint 1, main () at a.cc:8
> 8 ? ? ? ? ? factorial(5);
> (gdb) rec
> (gdb) s
> factorial (x=5) at a.cc:2
> 2 ? ? ? ? ?if (x == 1) return 1;
> (gdb) n
> 3 ? ? ? ? ?int result = x * factorial(x-1);
> (gdb) n
> 4 ? ? ? ? ?return result;
> (gdb) rn
> factorial (x=4) at a.cc:5
> 5 ? ? ? }
>
> Notice how the reverse-next(rn) command jumped to the end
> of the next factorial method on the stack (x=4 instead of x=5).
>
> Thanks
>
> Marc
>
>