Hi Ed/Jim, After this fix, I'm noticing some buildbot failures in TestInlineStepping.py, which I reproduced locally:
Process 25548 stopped
* thread #1: tid = 25548, 0x0000000000400721 a.out`main(argc=1,
argv=0x00007fffd73b7b38) + 33 at calling.cpp:106, name = 'a.out', stop
reason = step over
frame #0: 0x0000000000400721 a.out`main(argc=1, argv=0x00007fffd73b7b38)
+ 33 at calling.cpp:106
103
104 inline_value = 0; // Stop here and step over to set up
stepping over.
105
-> 106 inline_trivial_1 (); // At inline_trivial_1 called from
main.
107
108 caller_trivial_1(); // At first call of caller_trivial_1 in
main.
109
(lldb) thread step-over
Process 25548 stopped
* thread #1: tid = 25548, 0x0000000000400728 a.out`main [inlined]
inline_trivial_2() + 7 at calling.cpp:96, name = 'a.out', stop reason =
step over
frame #0: 0x0000000000400728 a.out`main [inlined] inline_trivial_2() + 7
at calling.cpp:96
93 void
94 inline_trivial_2 ()
95 {
-> 96 inline_value += 1; // In inline_trivial_2.
97 called_by_inline_trivial (); // At caller_by_inline_trivial in
inline_trivial_2.
98 }
99
(lldb)
It looks like the call to step-over the call on line 106 results in LLDB
stopping two levels of inlined functions inside the call to
inline_trivial_1(), rather than the line after the call to
inline_trivial_1() as the user would expect..
Debugging the broken 'thread step-out' through the location in
ThreadPlanStepOverRange.cpp that was modified in 190149, I noticed that
while m_addr_context and older_context had equal comp_unit, function and
symbol members, the block members were not equal. Due to the way the
if-statement is nested, older_ctx_is_equivalent remains false and leads to
the buggy behaviour. I have a potential fix (please see attached patch) --
Jim when you have a moment, can you comment on the validity of the fix? I
am not seeing any other regressions with my patch applied (with either
clang trunk or gcc 4.7).
Thanks,
Dan
On 2013-09-06 8:43 AM, "Ed Maste" <[email protected]> wrote:
>Author: emaste
>Date: Fri Sep 6 07:43:14 2013
>New Revision: 190149
>
>URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=190149&view=rev
>Log:
>Correct logic error found by inspection.
>
>From Jim's post on the lldb-dev mailing list:
>
> This code is there as a backstop for when the unwinder drops a frame at
> the beginning of new function/trampoline or whatever.
>
> In the (older_ctx_is_equivalent == false) case we will see if we are at
> a trampoline function that somebody knows how to get out of, and
> otherwise we will stop.
>
>Modified:
> lldb/trunk/source/Target/ThreadPlanStepOverRange.cpp
>
>Modified: lldb/trunk/source/Target/ThreadPlanStepOverRange.cpp
>URL:
>http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project/lldb/trunk/source/Target/ThreadPlanSte
>pOverRange.cpp?rev=190149&r1=190148&r2=190149&view=diff
>==========================================================================
>====
>--- lldb/trunk/source/Target/ThreadPlanStepOverRange.cpp (original)
>+++ lldb/trunk/source/Target/ThreadPlanStepOverRange.cpp Fri Sep 6
>07:43:14 2013
>@@ -121,7 +121,7 @@ ThreadPlanStepOverRange::ShouldStop (Eve
> // in so I left out the target check. And sometimes the
>module comes in as the .o file from the
> // inlined range, so I left that out too...
>
>- bool older_ctx_is_equivalent = true;
>+ bool older_ctx_is_equivalent = false;
> if (m_addr_context.comp_unit)
> {
> if (m_addr_context.comp_unit == older_context.comp_unit)
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>lldb-commits mailing list
>[email protected]
>http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
older_ctx_equivalent_inline_stepping_fix.patch
Description: older_ctx_equivalent_inline_stepping_fix.patch
_______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
