From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 31469 invoked by alias); 3 Mar 2003 21:32:45 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 31407 invoked from network); 3 Mar 2003 21:32:41 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO walton.kettenis.dyndns.org) (62.163.169.212) by 172.16.49.205 with SMTP; 3 Mar 2003 21:32:41 -0000 Received: from elgar.kettenis.dyndns.org (elgar.kettenis.dyndns.org [192.168.0.2]) by walton.kettenis.dyndns.org (8.12.6/8.12.5) with ESMTP id h23LUmfD001184; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 22:30:48 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from kettenis@elgar.kettenis.dyndns.org) Received: from elgar.kettenis.dyndns.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by elgar.kettenis.dyndns.org (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id h23LUmYt002021; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 22:30:48 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from kettenis@elgar.kettenis.dyndns.org) Received: (from kettenis@localhost) by elgar.kettenis.dyndns.org (8.12.6/8.12.6/Submit) id h23LUm3g002018; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 22:30:48 +0100 (CET) Date: Mon, 03 Mar 2003 21:32:00 -0000 Message-Id: <200303032130.h23LUm3g002018@elgar.kettenis.dyndns.org> From: Mark Kettenis To: ac131313@redhat.com CC: gdb@sources.redhat.com, cfg@redhat.com, thropej@wasavisystems.com, rjl@sco.com, peter.schauer@regent.e-technik.tu-muenchen.de, brobecker@act-europe.fr In-reply-to: <3E63A2D5.8010007@redhat.com> (message from Andrew Cagney on Mon, 03 Mar 2003 13:45:41 -0500) Subject: Re: HEADS UP: converting the i386 to the new frame unwinding stuff References: <200303021731.h22HVsEl019548@elgar.kettenis.dyndns.org> <3E63A2D5.8010007@redhat.com> X-SW-Source: 2003-03/txt/msg00063.txt.bz2 Date: Mon, 03 Mar 2003 13:45:41 -0500 From: Andrew Cagney Mark, Per several recent discussions, can you create a branch and commit it to that. That way I can look at it now (regardless of your intended commit schedule)? Brilliant idea. I still have to comment my code a bit better, but I'll try to create that branch somehwere at the end of the week. I've started writing up the doco and in doing it, I suspect I may have found an `off by one' error with the unwinder cache. Having a second implementation using the current code should help sort this out. The current state of affairs seems to work quite well for the i386. The only thing that puzzles me is that apparently my i386_frame_register_unwind gets called without an initialized cache. I was under the impression that we'd always unwind the pc first, and since my i386_frame_pc_unwind initialized the cache, I'd always have an initialized cache with the other unwind functions. Mark