From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 14227 invoked by alias); 9 May 2003 22:27:53 -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 14212 invoked from network); 9 May 2003 22:27:53 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO crack.them.org) (146.82.138.56) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 9 May 2003 22:27:53 -0000 Received: from nevyn.them.org ([66.93.61.169] ident=mail) by crack.them.org with asmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 19EGLd-0004mA-00; Fri, 09 May 2003 17:28:14 -0500 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian)) id 19EGL3-0007w3-00; Fri, 09 May 2003 18:27:37 -0400 Date: Fri, 09 May 2003 22:27:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Andrew Cagney Cc: Mark Kettenis , gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [RFC] DWARF CFI: what to do with .eh_frame sections? Message-ID: <20030509222736.GA30307@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Andrew Cagney , Mark Kettenis , gdb@sources.redhat.com References: <200305092014.h49KEYPd020771@elgar.kettenis.dyndns.org> <20030509202040.GA27956@nevyn.them.org> <3EBC2482.2010203@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3EBC2482.2010203@redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.1i X-SW-Source: 2003-05/txt/msg00169.txt.bz2 On Fri, May 09, 2003 at 05:58:26PM -0400, Andrew Cagney wrote: > >On Fri, May 09, 2003 at 10:14:34PM +0200, Mark Kettenis wrote: > > > >>It's clear that we want to support unwinding using info in .eh_frame > >>sections in addition to .debug_frame sections. I'm inclined to make > >>to make dwarf-frame.c provide two frame unwinders: one that uses > >>.debug_frame info, and one that uses .eh_frame info. That way it will > >>be possible to let the target determine if .dwarf_frame will be > >>preferred over .eh_frame or not. > >> > >>Thoughts? > > > > > >That seems reasonable. I'd probably create a single function to > >register both unwinders, and call it from each target, though; > >since there's no reason I can think of to prefer one over the other > >modula unknown GDB bugs. > > Think of it as a two tiered effect, you know with ... (sorry). > > If I understand the cfi stuff correctly, it can be broken down into: > > - the cfi engine > - the cfi byte stream source > > (kind of like dwarf2expr) The latter can be debug info, .eh_frame, or > even (as long a go proposed) hand written code. Ah yes, I'd forgotten about this. It's becoming less important but it would still be useful. -- Daniel Jacobowitz MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer