From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 22141 invoked by alias); 18 Mar 2003 17:02:08 -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 22104 invoked from network); 18 Mar 2003 17:02:08 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO localhost.redhat.com) (207.219.125.105) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 18 Mar 2003 17:02:08 -0000 Received: from redhat.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7F90B2B11; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 12:01:58 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3E775106.8030609@redhat.com> Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 17:02:00 -0000 From: Andrew Cagney User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; NetBSD macppc; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20030223 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Daniel Jacobowitz Cc: gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: frame->unwind->this_base() References: <20030317001407.GA20827@nevyn.them.org> <3E75F64B.5040700@redhat.com> <20030317163843.GA11494@nevyn.them.org> <3E75FE48.9000104@redhat.com> <20030317171142.GA15367@nevyn.them.org> <3E7611EC.3020304@redhat.com> <20030317193537.GA11288@nevyn.them.org> <3E7670F6.9060906@redhat.com> <20030318051348.GA19741@nevyn.them.org> <3E773325.8090001@redhat.com> <20030318155007.GA26362@nevyn.them.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2003-03/txt/msg00280.txt.bz2 > On Tue, Mar 18, 2003 at 09:54:29AM -0500, Andrew Cagney wrote: > >> > >> >So in this case should we be hooking the get_frame_base() call to >> >return the computed DW_AT_frame_base? [...] And what happens if we don't >> >have DWARF-2 >> >information? > >> >> At the start I wrote: >> > >> > For dwarf2 frames, it would return, DW_AT_frame_base. For prologue > >> frames, it would return an attempt at an equivalent value. Hopefully it >> wouldn't be called for other frame types :-). > > > OK. I'll make the assumption that the DW_AT_frame_base and the CFA in > the dwarf2 unwind information (if both present) will agree. That would be a very bad assumption. They are pratically guarenteed to be different. Andrew