Re: Is nexti confused by pushq?
David Griffiths <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.gdb.devel |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <CA++j6c5QE5=NY6EYKnj2O+TT1=jcdHUKG1NfY72CMTbKu91PgA@mail.gmail.com> |
Thanks Dmitry, I will avoid nexti. It's pretty weird stepping through JITed code anyway, sometimes even a breakpoint/continue is not enough because it dives off into deopt functions and re-emerges in the interpreter! On Tue, 26 Feb 2019 at 14:19, Dmitry Samersoff <[email protected]> wrote: > David, > > On 26.02.2019 14:50, David Griffiths wrote: > > Ok, so in my case this is generated code with no debug info (Java JIT > > generated) so does that mean I shouldn't attempt to use nexti? (I've got > > other issues which probably preclude using nexti anyway but just curious) > > On my experience with Java JIT (C2) produced code, it's better to avoid > using nexti. > > If you do it programmatically, you can try to mimic nexti behavior in > some cases by analyzing instructions ahead and setting breakpoint where > appropriate. > > -Dmitry > > > > > Cheers, > > > > David > > > > On Tue, 26 Feb 2019 at 10:12, Jan Kratochvil <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > >> On Tue, 26 Feb 2019 08:32:37 +0100, Andrew Burgess wrote: > >>> Of course, this doesn't solve the problem for you, but at least you > >>> know what's going wrong now :) > >> > >> To make it clear the debuggee has wrong/insufficient debug info, its > >> .eh_frame/.debug_frame there should annotate the push (and pop) > >> instructions. > >> > >> > >> Jan > >> > > > > > -- David Griffiths, Senior Software Engineer Undo <https://undo.io> | Resolve even the most challenging software defects with software flight recorder technology Software reliability report: optimizing the software supplier and customer relationship <https://info.undo.io/software-reliability-report-optimizing-supplier-and-customer-relationship>