[PATCHv2,1/2] gdb: Remove unneeded parameter from set_breakpoint_location_function
Commit Message
The explicit_loc parameter in set_breakpoint_location_function is not
useful. This parameter is set from two possible fields of the
symtab_and_line used to create the breakpoint; the explicit_pc field,
and the explicit_line field.
First, the explicit_line field, this is not currently set for any
breakpoint command, so will never be true.
Next, the explicit_pc field. This can be true but will never be true
at the same time that the sal->msymbol field is also true - the
sal->msymbol is only ever set in linespec.c:minsym_found, which
doesn't allow for explicitly setting the pc.
The result of this is that if we are setting a breakpoint on an
msymbol that could turn out to be an ifunc, then we will not also have
either an explicit_pc or an explicit_line, this check can therefore be
removed.
There should be no user visible changes after this commit.
gdb/ChangeLog:
* breakpoint.c (set_breakpoint_location_function): Remove
explicit_loc parameter.
(momentary_breakpoint_from_master): Update call to
set_breakpoint_location_function.
(add_location_to_breakpoint): Likewise.
---
gdb/ChangeLog | 8 ++++++++
gdb/breakpoint.c | 14 +++++---------
2 files changed, 13 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
Comments
On 7/1/19 7:02 PM, Andrew Burgess wrote:
> The explicit_loc parameter in set_breakpoint_location_function is not
> useful. This parameter is set from two possible fields of the
> symtab_and_line used to create the breakpoint; the explicit_pc field,
> and the explicit_line field.
>
> First, the explicit_line field, this is not currently set for any
> breakpoint command, so will never be true.
>
> Next, the explicit_pc field. This can be true but will never be true
> at the same time that the sal->msymbol field is also true - the
> sal->msymbol is only ever set in linespec.c:minsym_found, which
> doesn't allow for explicitly setting the pc.
>
> The result of this is that if we are setting a breakpoint on an
> msymbol that could turn out to be an ifunc, then we will not also have
> either an explicit_pc or an explicit_line, this check can therefore be
> removed.
>
> There should be no user visible changes after this commit.
>
> gdb/ChangeLog:
>
> * breakpoint.c (set_breakpoint_location_function): Remove
> explicit_loc parameter.
> (momentary_breakpoint_from_master): Update call to
> set_breakpoint_location_function.
> (add_location_to_breakpoint): Likewise.
OK.
Thanks,
Pedro Alves
@@ -7096,12 +7096,10 @@ set_raw_breakpoint_without_location (struct gdbarch *gdbarch,
return add_to_breakpoint_chain (std::move (b));
}
-/* Initialize loc->function_name. EXPLICIT_LOC says no indirect function
- resolutions should be made as the user specified the location explicitly
- enough. */
+/* Initialize loc->function_name. */
static void
-set_breakpoint_location_function (struct bp_location *loc, int explicit_loc)
+set_breakpoint_location_function (struct bp_location *loc)
{
gdb_assert (loc->owner != NULL);
@@ -7113,8 +7111,7 @@ set_breakpoint_location_function (struct bp_location *loc, int explicit_loc)
if (loc->msymbol != NULL
&& (MSYMBOL_TYPE (loc->msymbol) == mst_text_gnu_ifunc
- || MSYMBOL_TYPE (loc->msymbol) == mst_data_gnu_ifunc)
- && !explicit_loc)
+ || MSYMBOL_TYPE (loc->msymbol) == mst_data_gnu_ifunc))
{
struct breakpoint *b = loc->owner;
@@ -8482,7 +8479,7 @@ momentary_breakpoint_from_master (struct breakpoint *orig,
copy = set_raw_breakpoint_without_location (orig->gdbarch, type, ops);
copy->loc = allocate_bp_location (copy);
- set_breakpoint_location_function (copy->loc, 1);
+ set_breakpoint_location_function (copy->loc);
copy->loc->gdbarch = orig->loc->gdbarch;
copy->loc->requested_address = orig->loc->requested_address;
@@ -8587,8 +8584,7 @@ add_location_to_breakpoint (struct breakpoint *b,
loc->msymbol = sal->msymbol;
loc->objfile = sal->objfile;
- set_breakpoint_location_function (loc,
- sal->explicit_pc || sal->explicit_line);
+ set_breakpoint_location_function (loc);
/* While by definition, permanent breakpoints are already present in the
code, we don't mark the location as inserted. Normally one would expect