From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 5841 invoked by alias); 2 Jul 2003 19:20:05 -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 5822 invoked from network); 2 Jul 2003 19:20:05 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO crack.them.org) (146.82.138.56) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 2 Jul 2003 19:20:05 -0000 Received: from dsl093-172-017.pit1.dsl.speakeasy.net ([66.93.172.17] helo=nevyn.them.org ident=mail) by crack.them.org with asmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 19XnA7-0002Nt-00 for ; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 14:21:03 -0500 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian)) id 19Xn98-0006wK-00 for ; Wed, 02 Jul 2003 15:20:02 -0400 Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2003 19:20:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: IBM S/390 prologue analysis revisited Message-ID: <20030702192002.GB26551@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: gdb@sources.redhat.com References: <3F00DC8C.5040908@redhat.com> <3F017E6B.90003@redhat.com> <3F032568.5060700@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3F032568.5060700@redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.1i X-SW-Source: 2003-07/txt/msg00049.txt.bz2 On Wed, Jul 02, 2003 at 02:33:12PM -0400, Andrew Cagney wrote: > > >>Editor note: It's missing the undefined state. I'll add it. > > > > > >I'd say that 'struct trad_frame_saved_reg' and 'struct prologue_value' > >are inverses of each other. They represent information at different > >steps in the process: > >- First you interpret your prologue to get a bunch of prologue values. > >- Then you use those to compute a set of trad_frame_saved_reg values. > >- Finally, those are what you'd use to find registers. > > > >Let me explain what I mean. > > Ah! Yes, in that case my suggestion doesn't make sense. > > Can I encourage you to add this to either the s390 to trad-frame code? > Trad frame might be better as it then provides a pointer towards the > ``new technique'' (but which ever). Yeah, I'd like to see the new code outside of s390-tdep.c also. -- Daniel Jacobowitz MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer