On 1/21/23 18:48, Tom Tromey wrote:
>>>>>> "Tom" == Tom de Vries via Gdb-patches <gdb-patches@sourceware.org> writes:
> 
> Tom> Fix these two issues by reversing the burden of proof:
> Tom> - currently we assume epilogue unwind info is invalid unless we can proof that
> Tom>   gcc >= 4.5.0.
> Tom> - instead, assume epilogue unwind info is valid unless we can proof that
> Tom>   gcc < 4.5.0.
> 
> FWIW this approach makes sense to me.
> 

OK, then changing RFC -> PATCH.

> It's pretty lame that there's no way to detect this failure from the
> frame section -- it can't be producer-sniffed and the augmentation
> strings can't really be changed.
> 
> gcc 4.5 was released in 2010, and so it's not like we're inconveniencing
> a lot of users.  If needed I guess we could add a user setting to switch
> this behavior back on.
> 
> Note there is a similar issue for the prologue, see:
> 
> https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25696
> https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17265
> https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21470
> 
> Also worth seeing the hilarious:
> 
> https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/41252#issuecomment-293676579
> 
> I think that in this area we should assume the debug info is correct,
> and keep a list of known-bad producers rather than assuming the debug
> info is wrong and having a list of known-good ones.
> 
> Tom> +  if (/* In absence of producer information, optimistically assume that we're
> Tom> +	 not dealing with gcc < 4.5.0.  */
> 
> This placement of the comment is pretty weird, it seems fine to just
> stick it before the 'if'.
> 

Done.

> Tom> +      if (cu->producer == nullptr)
> Tom> +	/* In absence of producer information, optimistically assume that we're
> Tom> +	   not dealing with gcc < 4.5.0.  */
> Tom> +	cust->set_epilogue_unwind_valid (true);
> Tom> +      if (!producer_is_gcc (cu->producer, nullptr, nullptr))
> 
> Normally if there is a comment and a line of code as the consequence of
> an 'if', we put them both in a block.
> 

Done.

> Anyway I was also thinking that the second one should say 'else if'.

True, thanks for catching that, also done.

I've also added a test-case, for the amd64-tdep.c change. I could make 
another one for the i386-tdep.c change, and/or one for the dwarf/read.c 
change, but I'm not sure that's worth the trouble.

Thanks,
- Tom