From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 11959 invoked by alias); 8 Mar 2003 11:42:19 -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 11952 invoked from network); 8 Mar 2003 11:42:17 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO walton.kettenis.dyndns.org) (62.163.169.212) by 172.16.49.205 with SMTP; 8 Mar 2003 11:42:17 -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 h28Bg6hs004201; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 12:42:06 +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 h28Bg5VE035204; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 12:42:05 +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 h28Bg1BL035199; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 12:42:01 +0100 (CET) Date: Sat, 08 Mar 2003 11:42:00 -0000 Message-Id: <200303081142.h28Bg1BL035199@elgar.kettenis.dyndns.org> From: Mark Kettenis To: ac131313@redhat.com CC: gdb@sources.redhat.com In-reply-to: <3E691984.4030207@redhat.com> (message from Andrew Cagney on Fri, 07 Mar 2003 17:13:24 -0500) Subject: Re: Unwinding dummy frames on the i386 References: <200303072059.h27KxgX1029877@elgar.kettenis.dyndns.org> <3E691984.4030207@redhat.com> X-SW-Source: 2003-03/txt/msg00139.txt.bz2 Date: Fri, 07 Mar 2003 17:13:24 -0500 From: Andrew Cagney > For now I've worked around this by having my own do-nothing > i386_save_dummy_frame_tos(), and having i386_unwind_dummy_id() return > contents of the (saved) frame pointer register for the frame's base. > Is there a better way to solve this? Can i386_save_dummy_frame_tos() save the `frame pointer register' that the unwind_dummy_id() method later returns? If reading the current value of FP_REGNUM from current_regcache is OK the answer is yes. Hmm, in that case it's probably an even better idea to actually set the frame pointer register to the top-of-stack in i386_save_dummy_frame_tos(). That way, we won't have a problem when there are several frameless function calls in a row. Is writing into current_regcache acceptable? While the TOS in save_dummy_frame_tos() might have once stood for top-of-stack, there isn't anything saying that it has to be the stack top. A better name for tha functioin's successor would be save_dummy_frame_id() Agreed. Mark