Adding per-application configuration data

Robert O'Callahan robert at
Thu Apr 10 00:26:37 PDT 2014

On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 7:08 PM, Chris Jones <jones.chris.g at>wrote:

> I'm a bit hesitant about going this route, especially if the use case so
> far is continuing through AsmJSFaultHandler().  Are we sure that the
> equivalent of [1] can't be done with gdb macros that don't require
> executing code in the tracee?

> My concern over the "application behaviors" is that rr will end up
> duplicating gdb functionality.  For example, to implement
> |AsmJSFaultHandler = continue|, rr needs to first look up debug info for
> sighandler functions that are invoked during execution.  Theoretically, rr
> can ask the gdb remote protocol for this.  If that doesn't work, or gdb
> doesn't send back enough info, we're back to parsing DWARF.  Then, rr has
> to know that the string "AsmJSFaultHandler" should match whatever debuginfo
> gdb sends us (or rr resolves itself), preferably using gdb's matching
> heuristics.  "AsmJSFaultHandler" may resolve to more than one symbol with
> different args and/or in different namespaces, .
Certainly doable, but my personal preference would be to try to fix the
> existing gdb helper before building this new mechanism into rr.

Fair enough.

Perhaps the gdb commands can be modified so on SEGV we just check if we're
at AsmJSFaultHandler and if so, continue. I don't know why it's written to
call sigaction the way it is.

Jtehsauts  tshaei dS,o n" Wohfy  Mdaon  yhoaus  eanuttehrotraiitny  eovni
le atrhtohu gthot sf oirng iyvoeu rs ihnesa.r"t sS?o  Whhei csha iids  teoa
stiheer :p atroa lsyazye,d  'mYaonu,r  "sGients  uapr,e  tfaokreg iyvoeunr,
'm aotr  atnod  sgaoy ,h o'mGee.t"  uTph eann dt hwea lmka'n?  gBoutt  uIp
waanndt  wyeonut  thoo mken.o w
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <>

More information about the rr-dev mailing list