From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 10566 invoked by alias); 11 Jul 2005 19:47:45 -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 10548 invoked by uid 22791); 11 Jul 2005 19:47:33 -0000 Received: from sibelius.xs4all.nl (HELO sibelius.xs4all.nl) (82.92.89.47) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.30-dev) with ESMTP; Mon, 11 Jul 2005 19:47:33 +0000 Received: from elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl (root@elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl [192.168.0.2]) by sibelius.xs4all.nl (8.13.0/8.13.0) with ESMTP id j6BJlHNU032623; Mon, 11 Jul 2005 21:47:17 +0200 (CEST) Received: from elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl (kettenis@localhost.sibelius.xs4all.nl [127.0.0.1]) by elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl (8.13.4/8.13.3) with ESMTP id j6BJlHaA028155; Mon, 11 Jul 2005 21:47:17 +0200 (CEST) Received: (from kettenis@localhost) by elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl (8.13.4/8.13.4/Submit) id j6BJl7PV008162; Mon, 11 Jul 2005 21:47:07 +0200 (CEST) Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2005 19:47:00 -0000 Message-Id: <200507111947.j6BJl7PV008162@elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl> From: Mark Kettenis To: drow@false.org CC: christophe.lyon@st.com, gdb@sources.redhat.com In-reply-to: <20050711160334.GA31890@nevyn.them.org> (message from Daniel Jacobowitz on Mon, 11 Jul 2005 12:03:34 -0400) Subject: Re: dwarf2 frame unwinder assumptions on SP References: <42D285AB.9E36C062@st.com> <20050711145053.GA29229@nevyn.them.org> <42D290FF.F665B4A1@st.com> <20050711154723.GA30937@nevyn.them.org> <42D29716.CCF93A0C@st.com> <20050711160334.GA31890@nevyn.them.org> X-SW-Source: 2005-07/txt/msg00130.txt.bz2 Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2005 12:03:34 -0400 From: Daniel Jacobowitz On Mon, Jul 11, 2005 at 05:58:14PM +0200, Christophe LYON wrote: > I don't see what to do in init_reg without adding a new value to the > dwarf2_frame_reg_rule enum. Do you mean changing the semantics of > DWARF2_FRAME_REG_CFA and provide a frame_prev_register() method > to interpret it accordingly? No. Change it globally in dwarf2-frame.c, since the offset field is currently unused with that rule. It's probably better to introduce DWARF2_FRAME_REG_CFA_OFFSET just like we did for DWARF2_FRAME_REG_RA_OFFSET. That would be #1 on your list, Christophe. I have the nagging feeling this has come up before, but I can't remember the conclusion. In the past we have discussed the relation between DW_OP_fbreg and CFA; some GCC port was never defining the frame base, and someone tried to use CFA. The conclusion then was that the CFA is defined only for the call frame info. This is why #4 on Christophe's list isn't the way to go. Mark