diff options
| author | Tom Tromey <tom@tromey.com> | 2016-06-20 10:36:29 -0600 |
|---|---|---|
| committer | Tom Tromey <tom@tromey.com> | 2018-02-26 09:37:03 -0700 |
| commit | 6893c19a8b81a399953edbf26aaef6e714a7ab0e (patch) | |
| tree | 915d985e090672f9312f7ec8b988c7210c2f6011 /gdb/solib-svr4.c | |
| parent | 2ddeaf8a7d64094f4caf6cdc412d8162f49f73a1 (diff) | |
| download | gdb-6893c19a8b81a399953edbf26aaef6e714a7ab0e.zip gdb-6893c19a8b81a399953edbf26aaef6e714a7ab0e.tar.gz gdb-6893c19a8b81a399953edbf26aaef6e714a7ab0e.tar.bz2 | |
Make "bt N" print correct number of frames when using a frame filter
PR python/16497 notes that using "bt" with a positive argument prints
the wrong number of frames when a frame filter is in use. Also, in this
case, the non-frame-filter path will print a message about "More stack
frames" when there are more; but this is not done in the frame-filter
case.
The first problem is that backtrace_command_1 passes the wrong value
to apply_ext_lang_frame_filter -- that function takes the final
frame's number as an argument, but backtrace_command_1 passes the
count, which is off by one.
The solution to the second problem is to have the C stack-printing
code stop at the correct number of frames and then print the message.
Tested using the buildbot.
ChangeLog
2018-02-26 Tom Tromey <tom@tromey.com>
PR python/16497:
* stack.c (backtrace_command_1): Set PRINT_MORE_FRAMES flag. Fix
off-by-one in py_end computation.
* python/py-framefilter.c (gdbpy_apply_frame_filter): Handle
PRINT_MORE_FRAMES.
* extension.h (enum frame_filter_flags) <PRINT_MORE_FRAMES>: New
constant.
2018-02-26 Tom Tromey <tom@tromey.com>
PR python/16497:
* gdb.python/py-framefilter.exp: Update test.
Diffstat (limited to 'gdb/solib-svr4.c')
0 files changed, 0 insertions, 0 deletions