From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 25981 invoked by alias); 15 Feb 2011 18:09:49 -0000 Received: (qmail 25964 invoked by uid 22791); 15 Feb 2011 18:09:48 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,FSL_RU_URL,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail-wy0-f169.google.com (HELO mail-wy0-f169.google.com) (74.125.82.169) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Tue, 15 Feb 2011 18:09:37 +0000 Received: by wyj26 with SMTP id 26so446758wyj.0 for ; Tue, 15 Feb 2011 10:09:35 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.216.143.17 with SMTP id k17mr986100wej.74.1297793375096; Tue, 15 Feb 2011 10:09:35 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.216.243.3 with HTTP; Tue, 15 Feb 2011 10:09:15 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <4D5ABAB2.2000405@redhat.com> References: <4D5ABAB2.2000405@redhat.com> From: Anitha Boyapati Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2011 18:09:00 -0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Testing Call frame information in .debug_frame section To: Richard Henderson Cc: gdb@sourceware.org, binutils@sourceware.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Mailing-List: contact binutils-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: binutils-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2011-02/txt/msg00178.txt.bz2 On 15 February 2011 23:11, Richard Henderson wrote: > > On 02/13/2011 07:10 AM, Petr Hluz=EDn wrote: > > http://xfree86.cygwin.ru/ml/binutils/2010-08/msg00109.html > > I'll agree that a better error message would be helpful. > > To answer a question within that message: > > > By the way: Why AVR target does not understand CFI? What needs to be > > done in binutils? And in GDB? > > =A0TARGET_USE_CFIPOP > =A0DWARF2_DEFAULT_RETURN_COLUMN > =A0DWARF2_CIE_DATA_ALIGNMENT > =A0DWARF2_LINE_MIN_INSN_LENGTH > > are the macros that need to be defined, I am a little confused here. I was under the impression that changes to GCC files alone would suffice. I am missing something here. Are the above mentioned changes required for assembling CFI information in assembly files in binutils? ( I see that i386 defines them in gas) > > =A0tc_cfi_frame_initial_instructions > > may be required depending on what the state of the unwind > info incoming to a function. =A0Have a look at tc-i386.c, > tc_x86_frame_initial_instructions for a typical stack-based > call mechanism. > > For the nearly related task of dwarf2 line numbers, you need > a call to dwarf2_emit_insn emitted immediately before each > insn is added to the frags. =A0Again, see tc-i386.c for ideas. > > Anitha