[lldb-dev] Problem unwinding from inside of a CRT function
zturner at google.com
Fri Jan 16 15:14:56 PST 2015
I think the first thing for us to try on the Windows side is to provide a
simple implementation of an ABI plugin. Earlier Jason mentioned that if
you're at the start of a function LLDB will try to create a default
unwinder by going through the ABI plugin, and that isn't happening for us
on Windows, presumably because something somewhere is (correctly) objecting
to the use of a SystemV ABI plugin on Windows. So my first step will be to
figure that out, make sure UnwindLLDB can create a default unwinder through
my MicrosoftABI plugin, and then see how far that gets us.
On Fri, Jan 16, 2015 at 3:10 PM, <jingham at apple.com> wrote:
> > On Jan 16, 2015, at 1:42 PM, Reid Kleckner <rnk at google.com> wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 16, 2015 at 12:44 PM, <jingham at apple.com> wrote:
> > 1) In the original implementation, (and this is how gdb does it, BTW)
> lldb single-stepped till "something interesting happened." As an
> optimization, when you are doing any kind of step through source range, I
> changed lldb so it runs from "instruction that could branch" to
> "instruction that could branch" using breakpoints. Then when it hits an
> instruction that could branch it single steps that instruction, and then
> figures out from where that went what to do next.
> > Nice.
> > BTW, if it were helpful to figure out what to do next, we could store
> some info (the old stack frame or whatever) when we hit a branch
> instruction, and then use it when the single-step completed. I haven't
> needed to do that yet, however; Jason's always been able to get the
> unwinder work reliably enough not to require this.
> > First, we should definitely teach the Windows unwinder to fall back to
> frame pointers if no debug info is present. That's an obvious win.
> > However, there are lots of environments (not just Windows) where
> unwinding is unreliable due to third party libraries, so it'd be nice if we
> can get by without unwinding.
> > 2) If the single step pushes a frame, and we are "stepping over", lldb
> sets a breakpoint on the return address and continues. When the return
> address is hit (for the current frame of course since it could be hit
> recursively) then we continue stepping as above.
> > Any objection to asking the target if the previous opcode is something
> typically used for a call (x86 call, ARM bl), single step, and then load
> the retaddr or link register? Is that hard to thread through? I suppose it
> would fire on 32-bit x86 PIC sequences (call 0 ; pop %ebx), but that won't
> The agents that manage stepping, etc (ThreadPlans) are persistent
> through-out the operation they manage. They live in a little stack of
> operations, so there's always one entity per step type operation (i.e. if
> you next, hit a breakpoint, call a function, hit a breakpoint in the
> function, next again, etc. each of these operations has a Thread Plan to
> govern it.) It wouldn't be hard to store some data in them, and use it
> either to convey hints to the unwinder when you step in, as Jason suggests,
> or whatever you needed to do.
> One thing, the ThreadPlans are currently architecture agnostic, and I'd
> like to keep it that way, so whatever you need to express should be done in
> an architecture-independent way. That might add a little complexity, but
> one I think will be worthwhile long term.
> But I agree with Jason that, from a resource allocation standpoint, time
> spent on the unwinder would benefit the whole system much more than time
> spent hacking around its deficiencies in the ThreadPlans.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the lldb-dev