From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 30444 invoked by alias); 26 Feb 2016 12:26:10 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org Received: (qmail 30432 invoked by uid 89); 26 Feb 2016 12:26:09 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-0.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,KAM_LAZY_DOMAIN_SECURITY autolearn=no version=3.3.2 spammy=H*r:Fri, unwinding X-HELO: usplmg20.ericsson.net Received: from usplmg20.ericsson.net (HELO usplmg20.ericsson.net) (198.24.6.45) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES256-SHA encrypted) ESMTPS; Fri, 26 Feb 2016 12:26:08 +0000 Received: from EUSAAHC008.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [147.117.188.96]) by usplmg20.ericsson.net (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id D9.5A.12433.B1040D65; Fri, 26 Feb 2016 13:07:55 +0100 (CET) Received: from elxa4wqvvz1 (147.117.188.8) by smtps-am.internal.ericsson.com (147.117.188.96) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.248.2; Fri, 26 Feb 2016 07:26:06 -0500 References: <1452188697-23870-1-git-send-email-antoine.tremblay@ericsson.com> <1452188697-23870-2-git-send-email-antoine.tremblay@ericsson.com> <86io1ung0a.fsf@gmail.com> <56CEE928.2080704@redhat.com> <86si0fbzto.fsf@gmail.com> User-agent: mu4e 0.9.17; emacs 24.4.1 From: Antoine Tremblay To: Yao Qi CC: Antoine Tremblay , Pedro Alves , Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] Teach arm unwinders to terminate gracefully In-Reply-To: <86si0fbzto.fsf@gmail.com> Date: Fri, 26 Feb 2016 12:26:00 -0000 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2016-02/txt/msg00838.txt.bz2 Yao Qi writes: > Antoine Tremblay writes: > >> Reading Pedro's description I'm not against the refactoring but it's non >> trivial to me at the moment at least. > > It is not a simple refacotring... > >> >> I suggest we allow this patch to go in in order to make progress on the >> arm tracepoint patchset and do that refactoring in a subsequent patch. >> >> Would that be OK ? > > I am afraid not. We should try this approach, because this will benefit > all targets. IMO, handling unavailable memory in general frame > unwinding is more important. So you intend to work on this ? > > b.t.w, I am still not confident on the arm software single step in > GDBserver on some cases, such as branch-to-self (".L2: b .L2") and > single step with signal. ARM tracepoint patches can go in after these > issues are resolved (I am working on these issues). Thanks for working on that, I'm just trying to progress whereever I can meanwhile so that tracepoint patches are ready to go when single stepping is OK. Thanks, Antoine