| Age | Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Files | Lines |
|---|
|
This updates the copyright headers to include 2025. I did this by
running gdb/copyright.py and then manually modifying a few files as
noted by the script.
Approved-By: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>
|
|
This commit is the result of the following actions:
- Running gdb/copyright.py to update all of the copyright headers to
include 2024,
- Manually updating a few files the copyright.py script told me to
update, these files had copyright headers embedded within the
file,
- Regenerating gdbsupport/Makefile.in to refresh it's copyright
date,
- Using grep to find other files that still mentioned 2023. If
these files were updated last year from 2022 to 2023 then I've
updated them this year to 2024.
I'm sure I've probably missed some dates. Feel free to fix them up as
you spot them.
|
|
This commit is the result of running the gdb/copyright.py script,
which automated the update of the copyright year range for all
source files managed by the GDB project to be updated to include
year 2023.
|
|
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.
|
|
This commits the result of running gdb/copyright.py as per our Start
of New Year procedure...
gdb/ChangeLog
Update copyright year range in copyright header of all GDB files.
|
|
gdb/ChangeLog:
Update copyright year range in all GDB files.
|
|
If you debug current GDB, set a "catch catch/throw/rethrow"
catchpoint, and then do "info breakpoints", the top GDB hits an
internal error:
(top-gdb) catch catch
Catchpoint 1 (catch)
(top-gdb) info breakpoints
Num Type Disp Enb Address What
1 breakpoint keep y src/gdb/breakpoint.c:6040: internal-error: void print_one_breakpoint_location(breakpoint*, bp_location*, int, bp_location**, int): Assertion `b->loc == NULL || b->loc->next == NULL' failed.
A problem internal to GDB has been detected,
further debugging may prove unreliable.
Quit this debugging session? (y or n)
The assertion in question is asserting that a breakpoint with a
print_one method only has one location, and it fails because this
catchpoint ends up with two locations.
Internally, "catch catch" sets a breakpoint at __cxa_begin_catch. If
we do that manually, we see the locations:
(top-gdb) b -qualified __cxa_begin_catch
Breakpoint 2 at 0xb122b0 (2 locations)
(top-gdb) info breakpoints
Num Type Disp Enb Address What
2 breakpoint keep y <MULTIPLE>
2.1 y 0x0000000000b122b0 <__cxa_begin_catch>
2.2 y 0x00007ffff2f4ddb0 in __cxxabiv1::__cxa_begin_catch(void*) at ../../../../libstdc++-v3/libsupc++/eh_catch.cc:41
Note that I had used -qualified. It seems strange that we get a
location for a namespaced symbol, but that happens because the minimal
symbol for that address is indeed called __cxa_begin_catch.
The real issue is that gdb is linked with
-static-libgcc/-static-libstdc++. And then, it _also_ ends up with
shared libstc++ loaded:
(top-gdb) info sharedlibrary stdc++
From To Syms Read Shared Object Library
0x00007ffff2f4b380 0x00007ffff2ffc018 Yes /lib64/libstdc++.so.6
Location 2.2 is set within libstdc++.so.6's range:
(top-gdb) p 0x00007ffff2f4b380 <= 0x00007ffff2f4ddb0 && 0x00007ffff2f4ddb0 < 0x00007ffff2ffc018
$1 = true
So due to -static-lib*, we end up with _two_ copies of the
__cxa_begin_catch code:
(top-gdb) disassemble 0x0000000000b122b0
Dump of assembler code for function __cxa_begin_catch:
0x0000000000b122b0 <+0>: push %rbx
0x0000000000b122b1 <+1>: mov %rdi,%rbx
0x0000000000b122b4 <+4>: callq 0xb11a80 <__cxa_get_globals>
0x0000000000b122b9 <+9>: movabs $0xb8b1aabcbcd4d500,%rdx
...
(top-gdb) disassemble 0x00007ffff2f4ddb0
Dump of assembler code for function __cxxabiv1::__cxa_begin_catch(void*):
0x00007ffff2f4ddb0 <+0>: push %rbx
0x00007ffff2f4ddb1 <+1>: mov %rdi,%rbx
0x00007ffff2f4ddb4 <+4>: callq 0x7ffff2f4a090 <__cxa_get_globals@plt>
0x00007ffff2f4ddb9 <+9>: movabs $0xb8b1aabcbcd4d500,%rdx
...
I think we end up with libstdc++.so.6 loaded because
libsource-highlight.so depends on it.
Irrespective of whether it's a good idea to use
-static-libgcc/-static-libstdc++, GDB should not crash. Since there
are two copies of the code, it seems right to have more than one
location. So the fix is just to remove the assertion.
A testcase is included, which mimics the scenerio described above,
with binary linked with -static-lib{stdc++,gcc} and a shared library
that is linked normally, along with other combinations for good
measure.
gdb/ChangeLog:
2019-07-09 Pedro Alves <palves@redhat.com>
PR c++/15468
* breakpoint.c (print_one_breakpoint_location): Remove
single-location assert.
gdb/testsuite/ChangeLog:
2019-07-09 Pedro Alves <palves@redhat.com>
PR c++/15468
* gdb.cp/except-multi-location-lib.cc: New.
* gdb.cp/except-multi-location-main.cc: New.
* gdb.cp/except-multi-location.exp: New.
|
