public inbox for gdb@sourceware.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@mvista.com>
To: Andrew Cagney <ac131313@redhat.com>
Cc: gdb@sources.redhat.com
Subject: Re: frame->unwind->this_base()
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 17:11:00 -0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20030317171142.GA15367@nevyn.them.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <3E75FE48.9000104@redhat.com>

On Mon, Mar 17, 2003 at 11:56:40AM -0500, Andrew Cagney wrote:
> >On Mon, Mar 17, 2003 at 11:22:35AM -0500, Andrew Cagney wrote:
> >
> >>
> >
> >>>>However, shouldn't the only thing needing the `virtual frame pointer' / 
> >>>>get_frame_base() be the code that needs a virtual base pointer when 
> >>>>computing the value of a local variable?
> >
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Yes, and that's the only time that we search for the frame base.  But
> >>>what difference does it make?
> >
> >>
> >>(gdb) info frame
> >>
> >>will display the correct value.
> >
> >
> >What does "correct" mean though?
> 
> Display the frame's `virtual base pointer'.
> 
> >>>At that point we have an offset that we
> >>>know is relative to DW_AT_frame_base, but we don't know if it's
> >>>relative to what the rest of GDB considers the frame base (since we
> >>>never use DW_AT_frame_base to compute the frame base in the first
> >>>place; and it's not clear to me that we should be).
> >
> >>
> >>Where, apart from `info frame', and variable evaluation, is it correct 
> >>for GDB to use the frame base?
> >
> >
> >I'm sorry, but I just don't understand what you're asking.  We use the
> >frame base all over.
> >
> >The current frame base (i.e. id.base) is produced by target specific
> >code - often via prologue analysis; on x86-64 via CFI; etc.
> 
> Er,
> 
> >GDB's frame code also makes available the get_frame_base() method. While 
> >the default implementation returns get_frame_id().base, I think there is 
> >going to need to be a per-frame frame->unwind->this_base method.
> 
> get_frame_base() returns ->frame and NOT ->id.base.

OK, I'm definitely going around in confused little circles.  Don't the
two statements above disagree?  The current get_frame_base does return
->frame but you also say above that get_frame_base should return
get_frame_id().base.

Conceptually, are frame->frame and frame->id.base supposed to be the
same?

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
MontaVista Software                         Debian GNU/Linux Developer

  reply	other threads:[~2003-03-17 17:11 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 22+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2003-03-16 22:04 frame->unwind->this_base() Andrew Cagney
2003-03-16 22:10 ` frame->unwind->this_base() Daniel Jacobowitz
2003-03-17  0:09   ` frame->unwind->this_base() Andrew Cagney
2003-03-17  0:14     ` frame->unwind->this_base() Daniel Jacobowitz
2003-03-17 16:22       ` frame->unwind->this_base() Andrew Cagney
2003-03-17 16:38         ` frame->unwind->this_base() Daniel Jacobowitz
2003-03-17 16:56           ` frame->unwind->this_base() Andrew Cagney
2003-03-17 17:11             ` Daniel Jacobowitz [this message]
2003-03-17 18:20               ` frame->unwind->this_base() Andrew Cagney
2003-03-17 19:35                 ` frame->unwind->this_base() Daniel Jacobowitz
2003-03-18  4:29                   ` frame->unwind->this_base() Andrew Cagney
2003-03-18  5:13                     ` frame->unwind->this_base() Daniel Jacobowitz
2003-03-18 15:22                       ` frame->unwind->this_base() Andrew Cagney
2003-03-18 16:38                         ` frame->unwind->this_base() Daniel Jacobowitz
2003-03-18 17:02                           ` frame->unwind->this_base() Andrew Cagney
2003-03-18 17:11                             ` frame->unwind->this_base() Daniel Jacobowitz
2003-03-18 17:28                               ` frame->unwind->this_base() Andrew Cagney
2003-03-18 17:38                                 ` frame->unwind->this_base() Daniel Jacobowitz
2003-03-18 20:22                                   ` frame->unwind->this_base() Andrew Cagney
2003-03-19 14:11                                     ` frame->unwind->this_base() Daniel Jacobowitz
2003-03-19 15:24                                       ` frame->unwind->this_base() Andrew Cagney
2003-03-19 15:32                                         ` frame->unwind->this_base() Daniel Jacobowitz

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20030317171142.GA15367@nevyn.them.org \
    --to=drow@mvista.com \
    --cc=ac131313@redhat.com \
    --cc=gdb@sources.redhat.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
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).