| <html lang="en"> |
| <head> |
| <title>Rationale - Debugging with GDB</title> |
| <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html"> |
| <meta name="description" content="Debugging with GDB"> |
| <meta name="generator" content="makeinfo 4.13"> |
| <link title="Top" rel="start" href="index.html#Top"> |
| <link rel="up" href="Agent-Expressions.html#Agent-Expressions" title="Agent Expressions"> |
| <link rel="prev" href="Varying-Target-Capabilities.html#Varying-Target-Capabilities" title="Varying Target Capabilities"> |
| <link href="http://www.gnu.org/software/texinfo/" rel="generator-home" title="Texinfo Homepage"> |
| <!-- |
| Copyright (C) 1988, 1989, 1990, 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, |
| 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010 |
| Free Software Foundation, Inc. |
| |
| Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document |
| under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.3 or |
| any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with the |
| Invariant Sections being ``Free Software'' and ``Free Software Needs |
| Free Documentation'', with the Front-Cover Texts being ``A GNU Manual,'' |
| and with the Back-Cover Texts as in (a) below. |
| |
| (a) The FSF's Back-Cover Text is: ``You are free to copy and modify |
| this GNU Manual. Buying copies from GNU Press supports the FSF in |
| developing GNU and promoting software freedom.''--> |
| <meta http-equiv="Content-Style-Type" content="text/css"> |
| <style type="text/css"><!-- |
| pre.display { font-family:inherit } |
| pre.format { font-family:inherit } |
| pre.smalldisplay { font-family:inherit; font-size:smaller } |
| pre.smallformat { font-family:inherit; font-size:smaller } |
| pre.smallexample { font-size:smaller } |
| pre.smalllisp { font-size:smaller } |
| span.sc { font-variant:small-caps } |
| span.roman { font-family:serif; font-weight:normal; } |
| span.sansserif { font-family:sans-serif; font-weight:normal; } |
| --></style> |
| <link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="../cs.css"> |
| </head> |
| <body> |
| <div class="node"> |
| <a name="Rationale"></a> |
| <p> |
| Previous: <a rel="previous" accesskey="p" href="Varying-Target-Capabilities.html#Varying-Target-Capabilities">Varying Target Capabilities</a>, |
| Up: <a rel="up" accesskey="u" href="Agent-Expressions.html#Agent-Expressions">Agent Expressions</a> |
| <hr> |
| </div> |
| |
| <h3 class="section">E.5 Rationale</h3> |
| |
| <p>Some of the design decisions apparent above are arguable. |
| |
| <dl> |
| <dt><b>What about stack overflow/underflow?</b><dd>GDB should be able to query the target to discover its stack size. |
| Given that information, GDB can determine at translation time whether a |
| given expression will overflow the stack. But this spec isn't about |
| what kinds of error-checking GDB ought to do. |
| |
| <br><dt><b>Why are you doing everything in LONGEST?</b><dd> |
| Speed isn't important, but agent code size is; using LONGEST brings in a |
| bunch of support code to do things like division, etc. So this is a |
| serious concern. |
| |
| <p>First, note that you don't need different bytecodes for different |
| operand sizes. You can generate code without <em>knowing</em> how big the |
| stack elements actually are on the target. If the target only supports |
| 32-bit ints, and you don't send any 64-bit bytecodes, everything just |
| works. The observation here is that the MIPS and the Alpha have only |
| fixed-size registers, and you can still get C's semantics even though |
| most instructions only operate on full-sized words. You just need to |
| make sure everything is properly sign-extended at the right times. So |
| there is no need for 32- and 64-bit variants of the bytecodes. Just |
| implement everything using the largest size you support. |
| |
| <p>GDB should certainly check to see what sizes the target supports, so the |
| user can get an error earlier, rather than later. But this information |
| is not necessary for correctness. |
| |
| <br><dt><b>Why don't you have </b><code>></code><b> or </b><code><=</code><b> operators?</b><dd>I want to keep the interpreter small, and we don't need them. We can |
| combine the <code>less_</code> opcodes with <code>log_not</code>, and swap the order |
| of the operands, yielding all four asymmetrical comparison operators. |
| For example, <code>(x <= y)</code> is <code>! (x > y)</code>, which is <code>! (y < |
| x)</code>. |
| |
| <br><dt><b>Why do you have </b><code>log_not</code><b>?</b><dt><b>Why do you have </b><code>ext</code><b>?</b><dt><b>Why do you have </b><code>zero_ext</code><b>?</b><dd>These are all easily synthesized from other instructions, but I expect |
| them to be used frequently, and they're simple, so I include them to |
| keep bytecode strings short. |
| |
| <p><code>log_not</code> is equivalent to <code>const8 0 equal</code>; it's used in half |
| the relational operators. |
| |
| <p><code>ext </code><var>n</var> is equivalent to <code>const8 </code><var>s-n</var><code> lsh const8 |
| </code><var>s-n</var><code> rsh_signed</code>, where <var>s</var> is the size of the stack elements; |
| it follows <code>ref</code><var>m</var> and <var>reg</var> bytecodes when the value |
| should be signed. See the next bulleted item. |
| |
| <p><code>zero_ext </code><var>n</var> is equivalent to <code>const</code><var>m</var> <var>mask</var><code> |
| log_and</code>; it's used whenever we push the value of a register, because we |
| can't assume the upper bits of the register aren't garbage. |
| |
| <br><dt><b>Why not have sign-extending variants of the </b><code>ref</code><b> operators?</b><dd>Because that would double the number of <code>ref</code> operators, and we |
| need the <code>ext</code> bytecode anyway for accessing bitfields. |
| |
| <br><dt><b>Why not have constant-address variants of the </b><code>ref</code><b> operators?</b><dd>Because that would double the number of <code>ref</code> operators again, and |
| <code>const32 </code><var>address</var><code> ref32</code> is only one byte longer. |
| |
| <br><dt><b>Why do the </b><code>ref</code><var>n</var><b> operators have to support unaligned fetches?</b><dd>GDB will generate bytecode that fetches multi-byte values at unaligned |
| addresses whenever the executable's debugging information tells it to. |
| Furthermore, GDB does not know the value the pointer will have when GDB |
| generates the bytecode, so it cannot determine whether a particular |
| fetch will be aligned or not. |
| |
| <p>In particular, structure bitfields may be several bytes long, but follow |
| no alignment rules; members of packed structures are not necessarily |
| aligned either. |
| |
| <p>In general, there are many cases where unaligned references occur in |
| correct C code, either at the programmer's explicit request, or at the |
| compiler's discretion. Thus, it is simpler to make the GDB agent |
| bytecodes work correctly in all circumstances than to make GDB guess in |
| each case whether the compiler did the usual thing. |
| |
| <br><dt><b>Why are there no side-effecting operators?</b><dd>Because our current client doesn't want them? That's a cheap answer. I |
| think the real answer is that I'm afraid of implementing function |
| calls. We should re-visit this issue after the present contract is |
| delivered. |
| |
| <br><dt><b>Why aren't the </b><code>goto</code><b> ops PC-relative?</b><dd>The interpreter has the base address around anyway for PC bounds |
| checking, and it seemed simpler. |
| |
| <br><dt><b>Why is there only one offset size for the </b><code>goto</code><b> ops?</b><dd>Offsets are currently sixteen bits. I'm not happy with this situation |
| either: |
| |
| <p>Suppose we have multiple branch ops with different offset sizes. As I |
| generate code left-to-right, all my jumps are forward jumps (there are |
| no loops in expressions), so I never know the target when I emit the |
| jump opcode. Thus, I have to either always assume the largest offset |
| size, or do jump relaxation on the code after I generate it, which seems |
| like a big waste of time. |
| |
| <p>I can imagine a reasonable expression being longer than 256 bytes. I |
| can't imagine one being longer than 64k. Thus, we need 16-bit offsets. |
| This kind of reasoning is so bogus, but relaxation is pathetic. |
| |
| <p>The other approach would be to generate code right-to-left. Then I'd |
| always know my offset size. That might be fun. |
| |
| <br><dt><b>Where is the function call bytecode?</b><dd> |
| When we add side-effects, we should add this. |
| |
| <br><dt><b>Why does the </b><code>reg</code><b> bytecode take a 16-bit register number?</b><dd> |
| Intel's IA-64 architecture has 128 general-purpose registers, |
| and 128 floating-point registers, and I'm sure it has some random |
| control registers. |
| |
| <br><dt><b>Why do we need </b><code>trace</code><b> and </b><code>trace_quick</code><b>?</b><dd>Because GDB needs to record all the memory contents and registers an |
| expression touches. If the user wants to evaluate an expression |
| <code>x->y->z</code>, the agent must record the values of <code>x</code> and |
| <code>x->y</code> as well as the value of <code>x->y->z</code>. |
| |
| <br><dt><b>Don't the </b><code>trace</code><b> bytecodes make the interpreter less general?</b><dd>They do mean that the interpreter contains special-purpose code, but |
| that doesn't mean the interpreter can only be used for that purpose. If |
| an expression doesn't use the <code>trace</code> bytecodes, they don't get in |
| its way. |
| |
| <br><dt><b>Why doesn't </b><code>trace_quick</code><b> consume its arguments the way everything else does?</b><dd>In general, you do want your operators to consume their arguments; it's |
| consistent, and generally reduces the amount of stack rearrangement |
| necessary. However, <code>trace_quick</code> is a kludge to save space; it |
| only exists so we needn't write <code>dup const8 </code><var>SIZE</var><code> trace</code> |
| before every memory reference. Therefore, it's okay for it not to |
| consume its arguments; it's meant for a specific context in which we |
| know exactly what it should do with the stack. If we're going to have a |
| kludge, it should be an effective kludge. |
| |
| <br><dt><b>Why does </b><code>trace16</code><b> exist?</b><dd>That opcode was added by the customer that contracted Cygnus for the |
| data tracing work. I personally think it is unnecessary; objects that |
| large will be quite rare, so it is okay to use <code>dup const16 |
| </code><var>size</var><code> trace</code> in those cases. |
| |
| <p>Whatever we decide to do with <code>trace16</code>, we should at least leave |
| opcode 0x30 reserved, to remain compatible with the customer who added |
| it. |
| |
| </dl> |
| |
| </body></html> |
| |
