[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       gdb
Subject:    Re: watchpoint and function epilogue
From:       Jim Blandy <jimb () red-bean ! com>
Date:       2005-11-21 17:31:23
Message-ID: 8f2776cb0511210931t21ba726cmf6059a6f3f79f8d4 () mail ! gmail ! com
[Download RAW message or body]

[Accidentally dropped CC]

On 11/21/05, Christophe LYON <christophe.lyon@st.com> wrote:
> Jim Blandy wrote:
> > On 11/18/05, Christophe LYON <christophe.lyon@st.com> wrote:
> >
> >>So what is your advice in order to deal with this situation? I guess
> >>that if the compiler is modified not to generate the instruction that
> >>restores the CFA_offset, it will work again. Is there any other possibi=
lity?
> >
> >
> > You could emit a location list that says that 'b' is optimized out
> > starting at L3.  I'm not sure how GDB would react to that, but it
> > would certainly be GDB's problem if it didn't behave correctly.
> >
>
> Thanks,
>
> I am not sure I can easily do that.
>
> No other target has the same kind of issue?

Actually, lots of targets have this issue. That test in the test suite
often has failures related to the compiler not quite accurately
describing when the variable is deallocated.

Another possibility would be to locate 'b' and all your other local
variables in a made-up internal lexical block which ends at L2.

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]