| Age | Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Files | Lines |
|---|
|
Reformat to make sure we have a clean file with no deviations
from the expected python code format.
|
|
Teach GDB how to dump memory tags for AArch64 when using the gcore command
and how to read memory tag data back from a core file generated by GDB
(via gcore) or by the Linux kernel.
The format is documented in the Linux Kernel documentation [1].
Each tagged memory range (listed in /proc/<pid>/smaps) gets dumped to its
own PT_AARCH64_MEMTAG_MTE segment. A section named ".memtag" is created for each
of those segments when reading the core file back.
To save a little bit of space, given MTE tags only take 4 bits, the memory tags
are stored packed as 2 tags per byte.
When reading the data back, the tags are unpacked.
I've added a new testcase to exercise the feature.
Build-tested with --enable-targets=all and regression tested on aarch64-linux
Ubuntu 20.04.
[1] Documentation/arm64/memory-tagging-extension.rst (Core Dump Support)
|
|
gdbarch_iterate_over_objfiles_in_search_order callback
A rather straightforward patch to change an instance of callback +
void pointer to gdb::function_view, allowing pasing lambdas that
capture, and eliminating the need for the untyped pointer.
Change-Id: I73ed644e7849945265a2c763f79f5456695b0037
|
|
Change gdbarch_register_reggroup_p to take a 'const struct reggroup *'
argument. This requires a change to the gdb/gdbarch-components.py
script, regeneration of gdbarch.{c,h}, and then updates to all the
architectures that implement this method.
There should be no user visible changes after this commit.
|
|
After the previous commit, which removes the predicate function
gdbarch_register_type_p, I noticed that the gdbarch->register_type
field was not checked at in the verify_gdbarch function.
More than not being checked, the field wasn't mentioned at all.
I find this strange, I would expect that every field would at least be
mentioned - we already generate comments for some fields saying that
this field is _not_ being checked, so the fact that this field isn't
being checked looks (to me), like this field is somehow slipping
through the cracks.
The comment at the top of gdbarch-components.py tries to explain how
the validation is done. I didn't understand this comment completely,
but, I think this final sentence:
"Otherwise, the check is done against 0 (really NULL for function
pointers, but same idea)."
Means that, if non of the other cases apply, then the field should be
checked against 0, with 0 indicating that the field is invalid (was
not set by the tdep code). However, this is clearly not being done.
Looking in gdbarch.py at the code to generate verify_gdbarch we do
find that there is a case that is not handled, the case where the
'invalid' field is set true True, but non of the other cases apply.
In this commit I propose two changes:
1. Handle the case where the 'invalid' field of a property is set to
True, this should perform a check for the field of gdbarch still
being set to 0, and
2. If the if/else series that generates verify_gdbarch doesn't handle
a property then we should raise an exception. This means that if a
property is added which isn't handled, we should no longer silently
ignore it.
After doing this, I re-generated the gdbarch files and saw that the
following gdbarch fields now had new validation checks:
register_type
believe_pcc_promotion
register_to_value
value_to_register
frame_red_zone_size
displaced_step_restore_all_in_ptid
solib_symbols_extension
Looking at how these are currently set in the various -tdep.c files, I
believe the only one of these that is required to be set for all
architectures is the register_type field.
And so, for all of the other fields, I've changed the property
definition on gdbarch-components.py, setting the 'invalid' field to
False.
Now, after re-generation, the register_type field is checked against
0, thus an architecture that doesn't set_gdbarch_register_type will
now fail during validation. For all the other fields we skip the
validation, in which case, it is find for an architecture to not set
this field.
My expectation is that there should be no user visible changes after
this commit. Certainly for all fields except register_type, all I've
really done is cause some extra comments to be generated, so I think
that's clearly fine.
For the register_type field, my claim is that any architecture that
didn't provide this would fail when creating its register cache, and I
couldn't spot an architecture that doesn't provide this hook. As
such, I think this change should be fine too.
|
|
I don't believe that the gdbarch_register_type_p predicate is called
anywhere in GDB, and the gdbarch_register_type function is called
without checking the gdbarch_register_type_p predicate function
everywhere it is used, for example in
init_regcache_descr (regcache.c).
My claim is that the gdbarch_register_type function is required for
every architecture, and GDB will not work if this function is not
supplied.
And so, in this commit, I remove the 'predicate=True' from
gdbarch-components.py for the 'register_type' field, and regenerate
the gdbarch files.
There should be no user visible changes after this commit.
|
|
Fixes a minor typo, in a comment, in the gdbarch-components.py script.
There should be no user visible changes after this commit.
|
|
This commit brings all the changes made by running gdb/copyright.py
as per GDB's Start of New Year Procedure.
For the avoidance of doubt, all changes in this commits were
performed by the script.
|
|
During review, it was suggested to change the "params" parameter from a
tuple to a list, for esthetic reasons. The empty ones are still tuples
though, they should probably be changed to be empty lists, for
consistency. It does not change anything in the script result.
Change-Id: If13c6c527aa167a5ee5b45740e5f1bda1e9517e4
|
|
This adds a comment to document how to update gdbarch.
|
|
The new gdbarch.sh approach will be to edit a Python file, rather than
adding a line to a certain part of gdbarch.sh. We use the existing sh
code, though, to generate the first draft of this .py file.
Documentation on the format will come in a subsequent patch.
Note that some info (like "staticdefault") in the current code is
actually unused, and so is ignored by this new generator.
|
