From: Andrew Cagney <ac131313@redhat.com>
To: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@mvista.com>
Cc: gdb@sources.redhat.com
Subject: Re: frame->unwind->this_base()
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 16:22:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <3E75F64B.5040700@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20030317001407.GA20827@nevyn.them.org>
>> 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.
> 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?
Andrew
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2003-03-17 16:22 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 ` Andrew Cagney [this message]
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 ` frame->unwind->this_base() Daniel Jacobowitz
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=3E75F64B.5040700@redhat.com \
--to=ac131313@redhat.com \
--cc=drow@mvista.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).