* Question: Is Dwarf CFI support required for new target?
@ 2018-05-29 17:12 Don Breazeal
2018-05-30 19:04 ` Simon Marchi
0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: Don Breazeal @ 2018-05-29 17:12 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gdb-patches
Hi,
I have a question about the requirements for GDB port to a new target:
is support for Dwarf Call Frame Information required for acceptance, or
is prologue analysis sufficient?
Thanks
--Don
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: Question: Is Dwarf CFI support required for new target?
2018-05-29 17:12 Question: Is Dwarf CFI support required for new target? Don Breazeal
@ 2018-05-30 19:04 ` Simon Marchi
2018-06-01 22:57 ` Breazeal, Don
0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: Simon Marchi @ 2018-05-30 19:04 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Don Breazeal; +Cc: gdb-patches
On 2018-05-29 12:14, Don Breazeal wrote:
> Hi,
> I have a question about the requirements for GDB port to a new target:
> is support for Dwarf Call Frame Information required for acceptance, or
> is prologue analysis sufficient?
> Thanks
> --Don
Hi Don,
Can you provide more context? I can interpret your question in two
ways:
- Your producer does not produce CFI, so you would be forced to always
use prologue analysis for unwinding. In that case, I guess it's fine,
GDB should do its best with the information at its disposal.
- Your producer produces CFI but GDB for your architecture won't use it.
In that case, I would ask why don't you use it. It's generally more
reliable and less hair-pulling than prologue analysis.
Simon
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* RE: Question: Is Dwarf CFI support required for new target?
2018-05-30 19:04 ` Simon Marchi
@ 2018-06-01 22:57 ` Breazeal, Don
0 siblings, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: Breazeal, Don @ 2018-06-01 22:57 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Simon Marchi; +Cc: gdb-patches
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Simon Marchi [mailto:simon.marchi@polymtl.ca]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2018 11:49 AM
> To: Breazeal, Don <Don_Breazeal@mentor.com>
> Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org
> Subject: Re: Question: Is Dwarf CFI support required for new target?
>
> On 2018-05-29 12:14, Don Breazeal wrote:
> > Hi,
> > I have a question about the requirements for GDB port to a new target:
> > is support for Dwarf Call Frame Information required for acceptance,
> > or is prologue analysis sufficient?
> > Thanks
> > --Don
>
> Hi Don,
>
> Can you provide more context? I can interpret your question in two
> ways:
>
> - Your producer does not produce CFI, so you would be forced to always
> use prologue analysis for unwinding. In that case, I guess it's fine,
> GDB should do its best with the information at its disposal.
> - Your producer produces CFI but GDB for your architecture won't use it.
> In that case, I would ask why don't you use it. It's generally more
> reliable and less hair-pulling than prologue analysis.
>
> Simon
Hi Simon,
My scenario is currently a little less concrete than those you describe, but this feedback is helpful.
Thanks
--Don
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2018-06-01 22:57 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2018-05-29 17:12 Question: Is Dwarf CFI support required for new target? Don Breazeal
2018-05-30 19:04 ` Simon Marchi
2018-06-01 22:57 ` Breazeal, Don
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).