Menu
▾
▴
[Valgrind-developers] valgrind: r7498 - in branches/DATASYMS: coregrind/m_debuginfo memcheck/tests
|
From: <sv...@va...> - 2008-02-28 18:03:52
|
Author: sewardj
Date: 2008-02-28 18:03:49 +0000 (Thu, 28 Feb 2008)
New Revision: 7498
Log:
readdwarf3.c: don't be spooked by apparently-bogus
DW_TAG_lexical_block created by icc9.
debuginfo.c: try to handle obviously-bogus location expressions
created by gcc-3.4.4 and gcc-3.4.5. Not sure if this is a good idea
or not. Also, add more debug printing stuff.
Modified:
branches/DATASYMS/coregrind/m_debuginfo/d3basics.c
branches/DATASYMS/coregrind/m_debuginfo/debuginfo.c
branches/DATASYMS/coregrind/m_debuginfo/readdwarf3.c
branches/DATASYMS/memcheck/tests/varinfo6.c
Modified: branches/DATASYMS/coregrind/m_debuginfo/d3basics.c
===================================================================
--- branches/DATASYMS/coregrind/m_debuginfo/d3basics.c 2008-02-28 08:30:43 UTC (rev 7497)
+++ branches/DATASYMS/coregrind/m_debuginfo/d3basics.c 2008-02-28 18:03:49 UTC (rev 7498)
@@ -630,6 +630,8 @@
aMax = * (Addr*)p; p += sizeof(Addr);
nbytes = * (UShort*)p; p += sizeof(UShort);
nGuards++;
+ if (0) VG_(printf)(" guard %d: %p %p\n",
+ (Int)nGuards, aMin,aMax);
if (regs == NULL) {
vg_assert(aMin == (Addr)0);
vg_assert(aMax == ~(Addr)0);
Modified: branches/DATASYMS/coregrind/m_debuginfo/debuginfo.c
===================================================================
--- branches/DATASYMS/coregrind/m_debuginfo/debuginfo.c 2008-02-28 08:30:43 UTC (rev 7497)
+++ branches/DATASYMS/coregrind/m_debuginfo/debuginfo.c 2008-02-28 18:03:49 UTC (rev 7498)
@@ -1615,7 +1615,8 @@
var_szB = muw.w;
if (show) {
- VG_(printf)("VVVV: find loc: %s :: ", var->name );
+ VG_(printf)("VVVV: data_address_%p_is_in_var: %s :: ",
+ data_addr, var->name );
ML_(pp_Type_C_ishly)( var->type );
VG_(printf)("\n");
}
@@ -1812,11 +1813,13 @@
Word i;
DebugInfo* di;
RegSummary regs;
+ Bool debug = False;
static UInt n_search = 0;
static UInt n_steps = 0;
n_search++;
- if (0) VG_(printf)("QQQQ: cvif: ip,sp,fp %p,%p,%p\n", ip,sp,fp);
+ if (debug)
+ VG_(printf)("QQQQ: cvif: ip,sp,fp %p,%p,%p\n", ip,sp,fp);
/* first, find the DebugInfo that pertains to 'ip'. */
for (di = debugInfo_list; di; di = di->next) {
n_steps++;
@@ -1868,7 +1871,8 @@
DiAddrRange* arange;
OSet* this_scope
= *(OSet**)VG_(indexXA)( di->varinfo, i );
- if (0) VG_(printf)("QQQQ: considering scope %ld\n", (Word)i);
+ if (debug)
+ VG_(printf)("QQQQ: considering scope %ld\n", (Word)i);
if (!this_scope)
continue;
/* Find the set of variables in this scope that
@@ -1898,6 +1902,9 @@
for (j = 0; j < VG_(sizeXA)( vars ); j++) {
DiVariable* var = (DiVariable*)VG_(indexXA)( vars, j );
SizeT offset;
+ if (debug)
+ VG_(printf)("QQQQ: var:name=%s %p-%p %p\n",
+ var->name,arange->aMin,arange->aMax,ip);
if (data_address_is_in_var( &offset, var, ®s, data_addr,
di->data_bias )) {
OffT residual_offset = 0;
@@ -1939,7 +1946,6 @@
dname1[n_dname-1] = dname2[n_dname-1] = 0;
if (0) VG_(printf)("get_data_description: dataaddr %p\n", data_addr);
-
/* First, see if data_addr is (or is part of) a global variable.
Loop over the DebugInfos we have. Check data_addr against the
outermost scope of all of them, as that should be a global
@@ -2086,6 +2092,31 @@
dname1[n_dname-1] = dname2[n_dname-1] = 0;
return True;
}
+ /* Now, it appears that gcc sometimes appears to produce
+ location lists whose ranges don't actually cover the call
+ instruction, even though the address of the variable in
+ question is passed as a parameter in the call. AFAICS this
+ is simply a bug in gcc - how can the variable be claimed not
+ exist in memory (on the stack) for the duration of a call in
+ which its address is passed? But anyway, in the particular
+ case I investigated (memcheck/tests/varinfo6.c, call to croak
+ on line 2999, local var budget declared at line 3115
+ appearing not to exist across the call to mainSort on line
+ 3143, "gcc.orig (GCC) 3.4.4 20050721 (Red Hat 3.4.4-2)" on
+ amd64), the variable's location list does claim it exists
+ starting at the first byte of the first instruction after the
+ call instruction. So, call consider_vars_in_frame a second
+ time, but this time don't subtract 1 from the IP. GDB
+ handles this example with no difficulty, which leads me to
+ believe that either (1) I misunderstood something, or (2) GDB
+ has an equivalent kludge. */
+ if (consider_vars_in_frame( dname1, dname2, n_dname,
+ data_addr,
+ ips[j],
+ sps[j], fps[j], tid, j )) {
+ dname1[n_dname-1] = dname2[n_dname-1] = 0;
+ return True;
+ }
}
/* We didn't find anything useful. */
Modified: branches/DATASYMS/coregrind/m_debuginfo/readdwarf3.c
===================================================================
--- branches/DATASYMS/coregrind/m_debuginfo/readdwarf3.c 2008-02-28 08:30:43 UTC (rev 7497)
+++ branches/DATASYMS/coregrind/m_debuginfo/readdwarf3.c 2008-02-28 18:03:49 UTC (rev 7498)
@@ -1462,6 +1462,21 @@
rangeoff, cc->cu_svma ),
level, isFunc, fbGX );
} else
+ if (have_lo && (!have_hi1) && (!have_range)) {
+ /* This scope is bogus. The D3 spec sec 3.4 (Lexical Block
+ Entries) says fairly clearly that a scope must have either
+ _range or (_low_pc and _high_pc). */
+ /* The spec is a bit ambiguous though. Perhaps a single byte
+ range is intended? See sec 2.17 (Code Addresses And Ranges) */
+ /* This case is here because icc9 produced this:
+ <2><13bd>: DW_TAG_lexical_block
+ DW_AT_decl_line : 5229
+ DW_AT_decl_column : 37
+ DW_AT_decl_file : 1
+ DW_AT_low_pc : 0x401b03
+ */
+ /* Ignore (seems safe than pushing a single byte range) */
+ } else
goto bad_DIE;
}
Modified: branches/DATASYMS/memcheck/tests/varinfo6.c
===================================================================
--- branches/DATASYMS/memcheck/tests/varinfo6.c 2008-02-28 08:30:43 UTC (rev 7497)
+++ branches/DATASYMS/memcheck/tests/varinfo6.c 2008-02-28 18:03:49 UTC (rev 7498)
@@ -2996,7 +2996,7 @@
for (j = ftab[ss << 8] & CLEARMASK; j < copyStart[ss]; j++) {
k = ptr[j]-1; if (k < 0) k += nblock;
c1 = block[k];
-croak( 2 + (char*)budget );
+croak( 2 + (char*)budget ); /* should identify decl in calling frame */
if (!bigDone[c1])
ptr[ copyStart[c1]++ ] = k;
}
|