From patchwork Mon Oct 26 13:21:59 2015 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Patchwork-Submitter: Luis Machado X-Patchwork-Id: 9380 Received: (qmail 4639 invoked by alias); 26 Oct 2015 13:22:07 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org Delivered-To: mailing list gdb-patches@sourceware.org Received: (qmail 4627 invoked by uid 89); 26 Oct 2015 13:22:06 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL, BAYES_00, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW, SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: relay1.mentorg.com Received: from relay1.mentorg.com (HELO relay1.mentorg.com) (192.94.38.131) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Mon, 26 Oct 2015 13:22:05 +0000 Received: from svr-orw-fem-03.mgc.mentorg.com ([147.34.97.39]) by relay1.mentorg.com with esmtp id 1Zqhir-00050D-Ob from Luis_Gustavo@mentor.com ; Mon, 26 Oct 2015 06:22:01 -0700 Received: from [172.30.15.192] (147.34.91.1) by svr-orw-fem-03.mgc.mentorg.com (147.34.97.39) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.3.224.2; Mon, 26 Oct 2015 06:22:00 -0700 Subject: Re: [PATCH] Do not pass NULL for the string in catch_errors References: <1441809933-9612-1-git-send-email-lgustavo@codesourcery.com> <55F182B1.4020404@redhat.com> <5627739A.2090401@codesourcery.com> <5628C37E.2030208@redhat.com> <5628C715.5010701@codesourcery.com> <5628CD72.1080001@redhat.com> <5628D847.4050109@codesourcery.com> <5628E7F3.40708@redhat.com> <562A64E7.9040806@codesourcery.com> To: Pedro Alves , Reply-To: Luis Machado From: Luis Machado Message-ID: <562E28F7.6030400@codesourcery.com> Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2015 11:21:59 -0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.3.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <562A64E7.9040806@codesourcery.com> X-IsSubscribed: yes On 10/23/2015 02:48 PM, Luis Machado wrote: > On 10/22/2015 11:43 AM, Pedro Alves wrote: >> On 10/22/2015 01:36 PM, Luis Machado wrote: >>> On 10/22/2015 09:50 AM, Pedro Alves wrote: >>>> On 10/22/2015 12:23 PM, Luis Machado wrote: >> >>> That would be fine by me. I was just experimenting with >>> TRY/CATCH/END_CATCH after my unsuccessful replacement of catch_errors >>> with catch_exceptions. See below. >>>>> >> >>>>> With catch_exceptions, instead of catching the error and letting the >>>>> inferior continue, it will just cause the inferior to terminate. >>>> >>>> I don't understand. Why do you say this will happen? >>>> >>> >>> I replaced catch_errors with catch_exceptions in record-full.c. I saw a >>> bunch of failures in gdb.reverse/sigall-reverse.exp, starting at this >>> point: >>> >>> Breakpoint 142, handle_TERM (sig=15) at >>> ../../../gdb-head-ro/gdb/testsuite/gdb.reverse/sigall-reverse.c:378^M >>> 378 }^M >>> (gdb) PASS: gdb.reverse/sigall-reverse.exp: send signal TERM >>> continue^M >>> Continuing.^M >>> The next instruction is syscall exit_group. It will make the program >>> exit. Do you want to stop the program?([y] or n) yes^M >>> Process record: inferior program stopped.^M >>> ^M >>> [process 21188] #1 stopped.^M >>> >>> The above is a normal run. If i replace catch_errors with >>> catch_exceptions, instead of stopping the inferior, it will terminate. >>> Maybe there is a bug somewhere, or something is being mishandled. >> >> It just sounds to me that you didn't take into account >> that the return values of catch_errors and catch_exceptions >> differ. >> >> while one does: >> >> if (exception.reason < 0) >> { >> ... >> return exception.reason; >> } >> >> the other does: >> >> if (exception.reason != 0) >> return 0; >> >> This matters because the result is returned by >> record_full_message_wrapper_safe, and checked here: >> >> if (!record_full_message_wrapper_safe (regcache, >> GDB_SIGNAL_0)) >> { >> status->kind = TARGET_WAITKIND_STOPPED; >> status->value.sig = GDB_SIGNAL_0; >> break; >> } >> > > Indeed this is the case. I think i'll keep catch_errors and only fix the > NULL parameter then. Having to adjust return values from unrelated > functions sounds error-prone and maybe not worth it if we're moving away > from these types of constructs in the future. > > I've pushed the following now as 7cc53fba0a4e5c316a6e86fdae28f8cc9d0f9a68. 2015-10-26 Luis Machado * record-full.c (record_full_message_wrapper_safe): Pass empty string to catch_errors call instead of NULL. diff --git a/gdb/record-full.c b/gdb/record-full.c index cd47dfa..595e357 100644 --- a/gdb/record-full.c +++ b/gdb/record-full.c @@ -667,7 +667,7 @@ record_full_message_wrapper_safe (struct regcache *regcache, args.regcache = regcache; args.signal = signal; - return catch_errors (record_full_message_wrapper, &args, NULL, + return catch_errors (record_full_message_wrapper, &args, "", RETURN_MASK_ALL); }