Re: Command to break before exiting stack frame?
Justin Paston-Cooper <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.gdb.devel |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <CAEndGgTmELniW1Vana5SmX=Ys0mO_fR+OooijNnbe5PKgCa8XQ@mail.gmail.com> |
Tom> It seems to me that a tail call means there just isn't a return value Tom> from the calling function, only from the callee, because the caller Tom> doesn't even really have a separate return statement. That makes sense actually. Although I would hope that the break on exit command would break after any tail-recursive call exits. Tom> On the whole I think it would be better to start with the compiler. If Tom> it emits epilogue markers, then the gdb work is not difficult. Thanks for the tips. I've sent a message to the gcc mailing list. On Tue, 19 Mar 2019 at 15:42, Tom Tromey <[email protected]> wrote: > > Justin> Given its documentation, I would have expected the "finish" command to > Justin> print the returned value at each tail call. It turns out that it > Justin> prints the returned value only for the f(0) call. I would similarly > Justin> expect a "break on exit" command to break on the exit of the frame in > Justin> which it is called even if a tail-recursion occurs. Is there a reason > Justin> that it doesn't? > > It seems to me that a tail call means there just isn't a return value > from the calling function, only from the callee, because the caller > doesn't even really have a separate return statement. > > I suppose, though, if it is like inlining, then this text from the > manual also applies: > > * GDB cannot locate the return value of inlined calls after using the > 'finish' command. This is a limitation of compiler-generated > debugging information; after 'finish', you can step to the next > line and print a variable where your program stored the return > value. > > Justin> On the actual implementation of this command: Is the implementation of > Justin> such a feature feasible? If so, how much work would it take? > > For the compiler, I couldn't say. For gdb, doing it without help from > the compiler seems difficult, as you'd probably have to write an > instruction decoder. gdb already has these for some architectures > (various kinds, actually, for different things), but probably not in a > useful form. > > On the whole I think it would be better to start with the compiler. If > it emits epilogue markers, then the gdb work is not difficult. > > Tom