From: Pedro Alves Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2014 20:24:59 +0000 (+0000) Subject: stepi/nexti: skip signal handler if "handle nostop" signal arrives X-Git-Url: https://git.libre-soc.org/?a=commitdiff_plain;h=e5f8a7cc2d376c81749b6e4a4efc034201cf683c;p=binutils-gdb.git stepi/nexti: skip signal handler if "handle nostop" signal arrives I noticed that "si" behaves differently when a "handle nostop" signal arrives while the step is in progress, depending on whether the program was stopped at a breakpoint when "si" was entered. Specifically, in case GDB needs to step off a breakpoint, the handler is skipped and the program stops in the next "mainline" instruction. Otherwise, the "si" stops in the first instruction of the signal handler. I was surprised the testsuite doesn't catch this difference. Turns out gdb.base/sigstep.exp covers a bunch of cases related to stepping and signal handlers, but does not test stepi nor nexti, only step/next/continue. My first reaction was that stopping in the signal handler was the correct thing to do, as it's where the next user-visible instruction that is executed is. I considered then "nexti" -- a signal handler could be reasonably considered a subroutine call to step over, it'd seem intuitive to me that "nexti" would skip it. But then, I realized that signals that arrive while a plain/line "step" is in progress _also_ have their handler skipped. A user might well be excused for being confused by this, given: (gdb) help step Step program until it reaches a different source line. And the signal handler's sources will be in different source lines, after all. I think that having to explain that "stepi" steps into handlers, (and that "nexti" wouldn't according to my reasoning above), while "step" does not, is a sign of an awkward interface. E.g., if a user truly is interested in stepping into signal handlers, then it's odd that she has to either force the signal to "handle stop", or recall to do "stepi" whenever such a signal might be delivered. For that use case, it'd seem nicer to me if "step" also stepped into handlers. This suggests to me that we either need a global "step-into-handlers" setting, or perhaps better, make "handle pass/nopass stop/nostop print/noprint" have have an additional axis - "handle stepinto/nostepinto", so that the user could configure whether handlers for specific signals should be stepped into. In any case, I think it's simpler (and thus better) for all step commands to behave the same. This commit thus makes "si/ni" skip handlers for "handle nostop" signals that arrive while the command was already in progress, like step/next do. To be clear, nothing changes if the program was stopped for a signal, and the user enters a stepping command _then_ -- GDB still steps into the handler. The change concerns signals that don't cause a stop and that arrive while the step is in progress. Tested on x86_64 Fedora 20, native and gdbserver. gdb/ 2014-10-27 Pedro Alves * infrun.c (handle_signal_stop): Also skip handlers when a random signal arrives while handling a "stepi" or a "nexti". Set the thread's 'step_after_step_resume_breakpoint' flag. gdb/doc/ 2014-10-27 Pedro Alves * gdb.texinfo (Continuing and Stepping): Add cross reference to info on stepping and signal handlers. (Signals): Explain stepping and signal handlers. Add context index entry, and cross references. gdb/testsuite/ 2014-10-27 Pedro Alves * gdb.base/sigstep.c (dummy): New global. (main): Issue a couple writes to the new global. * gdb.base/sigstep.exp (get_next_pc, test_skip_handler): New procedures. (skip_over_handler): Use test_skip_handler. (top level): Call skip_over_handler for stepi and nexti too. (breakpoint_over_handler): Use test_skip_handler. (top level): Call breakpoint_over_handler for stepi and nexti too. --- diff --git a/gdb/ChangeLog b/gdb/ChangeLog index 32f788c55ab..8a34118586c 100644 --- a/gdb/ChangeLog +++ b/gdb/ChangeLog @@ -1,3 +1,9 @@ +2014-10-27 Pedro Alves + + * infrun.c (handle_signal_stop): Also skip handlers when a random + signal arrives while handling a "stepi" or a "nexti". Set the + thread's 'step_after_step_resume_breakpoint' flag. + 2014-10-27 Luis Machado * arm-tdep.c (INSN_S_L_BIT_NUM): Document. diff --git a/gdb/doc/ChangeLog b/gdb/doc/ChangeLog index f1b2329d388..f60fd8fc0b2 100644 --- a/gdb/doc/ChangeLog +++ b/gdb/doc/ChangeLog @@ -1,3 +1,10 @@ +2014-10-27 Pedro Alves + + * gdb.texinfo (Continuing and Stepping): Add cross reference to + info on stepping and signal handlers. + (Signals): Explain stepping and signal handlers. Add context + index entry, and cross references. + 2014-10-20 Simon Marchi * python.texi (Breakpoints In Python): Add parenthesis after diff --git a/gdb/doc/gdb.texinfo b/gdb/doc/gdb.texinfo index a1b8ac7aa91..15c29082dca 100644 --- a/gdb/doc/gdb.texinfo +++ b/gdb/doc/gdb.texinfo @@ -5079,7 +5079,9 @@ line of source code, or one machine instruction (depending on what particular command you use). Either when continuing or when stepping, your program may stop even sooner, due to a breakpoint or a signal. (If it stops due to a signal, you may want to use @code{handle}, or use -@samp{signal 0} to resume execution. @xref{Signals, ,Signals}.) +@samp{signal 0} to resume execution (@pxref{Signals, ,Signals}), +or you may step into the signal's handler (@pxref{stepping and signal +handlers}).) @table @code @kindex continue @@ -5573,6 +5575,66 @@ a result of the fatal signal once it saw the signal. To prevent this, you can continue with @samp{signal 0}. @xref{Signaling, ,Giving your Program a Signal}. +@cindex stepping and signal handlers +@anchor{stepping and signal handlers} + +@value{GDBN} optimizes for stepping the mainline code. If a signal +that has @code{handle nostop} and @code{handle pass} set arrives while +a stepping command (e.g., @code{stepi}, @code{step}, @code{next}) is +in progress, @value{GDBN} lets the signal handler run and then resumes +stepping the mainline code once the signal handler returns. In other +words, @value{GDBN} steps over the signal handler. This prevents +signals that you've specified as not interesting (with @code{handle +nostop}) from changing the focus of debugging unexpectedly. Note that +the signal handler itself may still hit a breakpoint, stop for another +signal that has @code{handle stop} in effect, or for any other event +that normally results in stopping the stepping command sooner. Also +note that @value{GDBN} still informs you that the program received a +signal if @code{handle print} is set. + +@anchor{stepping into signal handlers} + +If you set @code{handle pass} for a signal, and your program sets up a +handler for it, then issuing a stepping command, such as @code{step} +or @code{stepi}, when your program is stopped due to the signal will +step @emph{into} the signal handler (if the target supports that). + +Likewise, if you use the @code{queue-signal} command to queue a signal +to be delivered to the current thread when execution of the thread +resumes (@pxref{Signaling, ,Giving your Program a Signal}), then a +stepping command will step into the signal handler. + +Here's an example, using @code{stepi} to step to the first instruction +of @code{SIGUSR1}'s handler: + +@smallexample +(@value{GDBP}) handle SIGUSR1 +Signal Stop Print Pass to program Description +SIGUSR1 Yes Yes Yes User defined signal 1 +(@value{GDBP}) c +Continuing. + +Program received signal SIGUSR1, User defined signal 1. +main () sigusr1.c:28 +28 p = 0; +(@value{GDBP}) si +sigusr1_handler () at sigusr1.c:9 +9 @{ +@end smallexample + +The same, but using @code{queue-signal} instead of waiting for the +program to receive the signal first: + +@smallexample +(@value{GDBP}) n +28 p = 0; +(@value{GDBP}) queue-signal SIGUSR1 +(@value{GDBP}) si +sigusr1_handler () at sigusr1.c:9 +9 @{ +(@value{GDBP}) +@end smallexample + @cindex extra signal information @anchor{extra signal information} @@ -16654,6 +16716,9 @@ be used to pass a signal whose handling state has been set to @code{nopass} @end table @c @end group +@xref{stepping into signal handlers}, for information on how stepping +commands behave when the thread has a signal queued. + @node Returning @section Returning from a Function diff --git a/gdb/infrun.c b/gdb/infrun.c index 90a31235ad5..df053e26ffe 100644 --- a/gdb/infrun.c +++ b/gdb/infrun.c @@ -4463,9 +4463,9 @@ handle_signal_stop (struct execution_control_state *ecs) return; } - if (ecs->event_thread->control.step_range_end != 0 - && ecs->event_thread->suspend.stop_signal != GDB_SIGNAL_0 - && pc_in_thread_step_range (stop_pc, ecs->event_thread) + if (ecs->event_thread->suspend.stop_signal != GDB_SIGNAL_0 + && (pc_in_thread_step_range (stop_pc, ecs->event_thread) + || ecs->event_thread->control.step_range_end == 1) && frame_id_eq (get_stack_frame_id (frame), ecs->event_thread->control.step_stack_frame_id) && ecs->event_thread->control.step_resume_breakpoint == NULL) @@ -4485,6 +4485,7 @@ handle_signal_stop (struct execution_control_state *ecs) "single-step range\n"); insert_hp_step_resume_breakpoint_at_frame (frame); + ecs->event_thread->step_after_step_resume_breakpoint = 1; /* Reset trap_expected to ensure breakpoints are re-inserted. */ ecs->event_thread->control.trap_expected = 0; keep_going (ecs); diff --git a/gdb/testsuite/ChangeLog b/gdb/testsuite/ChangeLog index 2eea79128c4..5cc7b0be47d 100644 --- a/gdb/testsuite/ChangeLog +++ b/gdb/testsuite/ChangeLog @@ -1,3 +1,14 @@ +2014-10-27 Pedro Alves + + * gdb.base/sigstep.c (dummy): New global. + (main): Issue a couple writes to the new global. + * gdb.base/sigstep.exp (get_next_pc, test_skip_handler): New + procedures. + (skip_over_handler): Use test_skip_handler. + (top level): Call skip_over_handler for stepi and nexti too. + (breakpoint_over_handler): Use test_skip_handler. + (top level): Call breakpoint_over_handler for stepi and nexti too. + 2014-10-27 Yao Qi * gdb.trace/tfile.c (adjust_function_address) diff --git a/gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/sigstep.c b/gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/sigstep.c index aa2384a1d6d..cc691843abb 100644 --- a/gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/sigstep.c +++ b/gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/sigstep.c @@ -24,6 +24,7 @@ #include static volatile int done; +static volatile int dummy; static void handler (int sig) @@ -74,8 +75,10 @@ main () return 1; } } - /* Wait. */ - while (!done); + /* Wait. Issue a couple writes to a dummy volatile var to be + reasonably sure our simple "get-next-pc" logic doesn't + stumble on branches. */ + dummy = 0; dummy = 0; while (!done); done = 0; } return 0; diff --git a/gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/sigstep.exp b/gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/sigstep.exp index 184d46e527f..53152b8f2f9 100644 --- a/gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/sigstep.exp +++ b/gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/sigstep.exp @@ -269,9 +269,38 @@ proc skip_to_handler_entry { i } { gdb_test "clear *handler" ".*" "$prefix; clear handler" } -skip_to_handler_entry step -skip_to_handler_entry next -skip_to_handler_entry continue +foreach cmd {"stepi" "nexti" "step" "next" "continue"} { + skip_to_handler_entry $cmd +} + +# Get the address of where a single-step should land. + +proc get_next_pc {test} { + global gdb_prompt + global hex + + set next "" + gdb_test_multiple "x/2i \$pc" $test { + -re "$hex .*:\[^\r\n\]+\r\n\[ \]+($hex).*\.\r\n$gdb_prompt $" { + set next $expect_out(1,string) + pass $test + } + } + + return $next +} + +# Test that the command skipped over the handler. + +proc test_skip_handler {prefix i} { + if {$i == "stepi" || $i == "nexti"} { + set next_pc [get_next_pc "$prefix; get next PC"] + gdb_test "$i" "dummy = 0.*" "$prefix; performing $i" + gdb_test "p /x \$pc" " = $next_pc" "$prefix; advanced" + } else { + gdb_test "$i" "done = 0.*" "$prefix; performing $i" + } +} # Try stepping when there's a signal pending but no breakpoints. # Should skip the handler advancing to the next line. @@ -295,13 +324,13 @@ proc skip_over_handler { i } { # Make the signal pending sleep 1 - - gdb_test "$i" "done = 0.*" "$prefix; performing $i" + + test_skip_handler $prefix $i } -skip_over_handler step -skip_over_handler next -skip_over_handler continue +foreach cmd {"stepi" "nexti" "step" "next" "continue"} { + skip_over_handler $cmd +} # Try stepping when there's a signal pending, a pre-existing # breakpoint at the current instruction, and a breakpoint in the @@ -385,7 +414,7 @@ breakpoint_to_handler_entry continue # Try stepping when there's a signal pending, and a pre-existing # breakpoint at the current instruction, and no breakpoint in the -# handler. Should advance to the next line. +# handler. Should advance to the next line/instruction. proc breakpoint_over_handler { i } { global gdb_prompt @@ -409,10 +438,10 @@ proc breakpoint_over_handler { i } { # Make the signal pending sleep 1 - gdb_test "$i" "done = 0.*" "$prefix; performing $i" + test_skip_handler $prefix $i gdb_test "clear $infinite_loop" ".*" "$prefix; clear infinite loop" } -breakpoint_over_handler step -breakpoint_over_handler next -breakpoint_over_handler continue +foreach cmd {"stepi" "nexti" "step" "next" "continue"} { + breakpoint_over_handler $cmd +}