#9510 closed enhancement (fixed)
Include area list in the debug report
Reported by: | axeld | Owned by: | anevilyak |
---|---|---|---|
Priority: | normal | Milestone: | R1 |
Component: | Applications/Debugger | Version: | R1/Development |
Keywords: | Cc: | ||
Blocked By: | Blocking: | ||
Platform: | All |
Description
Extra points if the image areas aren't listed twice.
Another thing to think about would be to include the stack traces of all threads, not just the crashed one. I mean space isn't really an issue, is it?
Attachments (1)
Change History (9)
comment:1 by , 12 years ago
comment:2 by , 12 years ago
Status: | new → in-progress |
---|
comment:3 by , 12 years ago
Resolution: | → fixed |
---|---|
Status: | in-progress → closed |
follow-ups: 5 6 comment:4 by , 12 years ago
Nice addition. Would it be costly to dump AreaInfo's lock and protection flags in a user friendly way, not only a hex value?
comment:5 by , 12 years ago
Replying to phoudoin:
Nice addition. Would it be costly to dump AreaInfo's lock and protection flags in a user friendly way, not only a hex value?
That'd certainly be doable, would just need to write a corresponding formatter. Will add to my TODO list.
comment:6 by , 12 years ago
Replying to phoudoin:
Would it be costly to dump AreaInfo's lock and protection flags in a user friendly way, not only a hex value?
A sample:
reas: runtime_loader_seg0ro (556770) Base: 0x100000, Size: 61440, RAM Size: 0, Locking: B_FULL_LOCK, Protection: B_READ_AREA|B_EXECUTE_AREA runtime_loader_seg1rw (556771) Base: 0x10f000, Size: 4096, RAM Size: 4096, Locking: B_FULL_LOCK, Protection: B_READ_AREA|B_WRITE_AREA rld heap (556772) Base: 0x110000, Size: 65536, RAM Size: 49152, Locking: B_FULL_LOCK, Protection: B_READ_AREA|B_WRITE_AREA|B_KERNEL_READ_AREA|B_KERNEL_WRITE_AREA _rld_debug_ (556773) Base: 0x120000, Size: 4096, RAM Size: 4096, Locking: B_FULL_LOCK, Protection: B_READ_AREA|B_WRITE_AREA|B_KERNEL_READ_AREA|B_KERNEL_WRITE_AREA|B_SHARED_AREA
Only problem is this gets a bit long for areas with lots of flags, any suggestions as far as ways to shorten it but still have the meaning be clear?
follow-up: 8 comment:7 by , 12 years ago
Some suggestions:
- "full", "lazy", and "none" instead of
B_FULL_LOCK
, etc. - "r+w" for
B_READ_READ|B_WRITE_AREA
- "kernel r+w" for
B_KERNEL_READ_READ|B_KERNEL_WRITE_AREA
- "shared" for
B_SHARED_AREA
- Leave out kernel if user r/w is given, because the latter implies the former
An example could then look like this:
Locking: full, Protection: r, kernel r+w
by , 12 years ago
Attachment: | Debugger-34522-debug-05-04-2013-20-49-08.report added |
---|
comment:8 by , 12 years ago
Replying to axeld:
Some suggestions:
- "full", "lazy", and "none" instead of
B_FULL_LOCK
, etc.
Done.
- "r+w" for
B_READ_READ|B_WRITE_AREA
- "kernel r+w" for
B_KERNEL_READ_READ|B_KERNEL_WRITE_AREA
- "shared" for
B_SHARED_AREA
- Leave out kernel if user r/w is given, because the latter implies the former
Did something similar, see attachment:Debugger-34522-debug-05-04-2013-20-49-08.report
A clarifying question though: do all of the user flags imply their kernel equivalent? i.e. do B_EXECUTE_AREA and B_STACK_AREA also imply their B_KERNEL_ equivalents? My current code assumes so, but I'm not completely certain as to where to look to ascertain that.
So it's not forgotten, from further discussion information about the crashed team's semaphores would also be nice to have.