* Enable frame-base before frame-unwind? @ 2003-06-25 16:51 Andrew Cagney 2003-06-25 18:28 ` Daniel Jacobowitz 0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread From: Andrew Cagney @ 2003-06-25 16:51 UTC (permalink / raw) To: gdb Here's a new theory on how to migrate to the unwind code: Enable frame-base before frame-unwind. Why? The frame-unwind code can't be enabled until frame-base is working anyway. Since frame-base is an almost direct replacement for FRAME_LOCALS_ADDRESS and FRAME_ARGS_ADDRESS, and the return values for the old/new methods are the same, I think getting frame-base working is going to be much easier than getting frame-unwind working. Since frame-base and frame-unwind share the prologue analysis code, debugging it with the less harmful frame-base should make life easier. Any one want to prove the theory? Andrew ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: Enable frame-base before frame-unwind? 2003-06-25 16:51 Enable frame-base before frame-unwind? Andrew Cagney @ 2003-06-25 18:28 ` Daniel Jacobowitz 2003-06-26 4:56 ` Daniel Jacobowitz 0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread From: Daniel Jacobowitz @ 2003-06-25 18:28 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Andrew Cagney; +Cc: gdb On Wed, Jun 25, 2003 at 11:42:41AM -0400, Andrew Cagney wrote: > Here's a new theory on how to migrate to the unwind code: > > Enable frame-base before frame-unwind. > > Why? The frame-unwind code can't be enabled until frame-base is working > anyway. Since frame-base is an almost direct replacement for > FRAME_LOCALS_ADDRESS and FRAME_ARGS_ADDRESS, and the return values for > the old/new methods are the same, I think getting frame-base working is > going to be much easier than getting frame-unwind working. Since > frame-base and frame-unwind share the prologue analysis code, debugging > it with the less harmful frame-base should make life easier. > > Any one want to prove the theory? ... sure. I think you've answered this once already, but is there a list of routines that have needed to change, so far? Or do I need to put one together as I go along? -- Daniel Jacobowitz MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: Enable frame-base before frame-unwind? 2003-06-25 18:28 ` Daniel Jacobowitz @ 2003-06-26 4:56 ` Daniel Jacobowitz 2003-06-26 14:07 ` Andrew Cagney 0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread From: Daniel Jacobowitz @ 2003-06-26 4:56 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Andrew Cagney, gdb On Wed, Jun 25, 2003 at 01:02:53PM -0400, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > On Wed, Jun 25, 2003 at 11:42:41AM -0400, Andrew Cagney wrote: > > Here's a new theory on how to migrate to the unwind code: > > > > Enable frame-base before frame-unwind. > > > > Why? The frame-unwind code can't be enabled until frame-base is working > > anyway. Since frame-base is an almost direct replacement for > > FRAME_LOCALS_ADDRESS and FRAME_ARGS_ADDRESS, and the return values for > > the old/new methods are the same, I think getting frame-base working is > > going to be much easier than getting frame-unwind working. Since > > frame-base and frame-unwind share the prologue analysis code, debugging > > it with the less harmful frame-base should make life easier. > > > > Any one want to prove the theory? > > ... sure. > I think you've answered this once already, but is there a list of > routines that have needed to change, so far? Or do I need to put one > together as I go along? I don't think the theory holds. I picked ARM, because I've been meaning to work on framifying ARM for some time now. Just like Richard, I've been running over and over into places where it's just not clear what the new code is supposed to do, or how it's supposed to do it. So take this with a grain of salt. ARM defines neither FRAME_LOCALS_ADDRESS or FRAME_ARGS_ADDRESS. Both default to the value of get_frame_base. In order to frame-base-ify it, I would have to move all the code which unwinds the frame base to the new structure, and I can't figure out how. I'm looking over the AVR patch now... -- Daniel Jacobowitz MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: Enable frame-base before frame-unwind? 2003-06-26 4:56 ` Daniel Jacobowitz @ 2003-06-26 14:07 ` Andrew Cagney 0 siblings, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread From: Andrew Cagney @ 2003-06-26 14:07 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Daniel Jacobowitz; +Cc: gdb > On Wed, Jun 25, 2003 at 01:02:53PM -0400, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > >> On Wed, Jun 25, 2003 at 11:42:41AM -0400, Andrew Cagney wrote: > >> > Here's a new theory on how to migrate to the unwind code: >> > >> > Enable frame-base before frame-unwind. >> > >> > Why? The frame-unwind code can't be enabled until frame-base is working >> > anyway. Since frame-base is an almost direct replacement for >> > FRAME_LOCALS_ADDRESS and FRAME_ARGS_ADDRESS, and the return values for >> > the old/new methods are the same, I think getting frame-base working is >> > going to be much easier than getting frame-unwind working. Since >> > frame-base and frame-unwind share the prologue analysis code, debugging >> > it with the less harmful frame-base should make life easier. >> > >> > Any one want to prove the theory? > >> >> ... sure. > > >> I think you've answered this once already, but is there a list of >> routines that have needed to change, so far? Or do I need to put one >> together as I go along? See my post to Corinna. You'll note that several parts of the h8 have been cleaned up. > I don't think the theory holds. > > I picked ARM, because I've been meaning to work on framifying ARM for > some time now. Just like Richard, I've been running over and over into > places where it's just not clear what the new code is supposed to do, > or how it's supposed to do it. So take this with a grain of salt. Is the complexity related to the frame code or the Arm architecture? The Arm, unlike AVR, Alpha, or d10v is going to be very complicated. This is because the Arm stack can contain mixed frames (Arm and Thumb) and figuring out how to correctly model that will require some serious head scratching. > ARM defines neither FRAME_LOCALS_ADDRESS or FRAME_ARGS_ADDRESS. Both > default to the value of get_frame_base. In order to frame-base-ify it, > I would have to move all the code which unwinds the frame base to the > new structure. The key word is `enable' (not `move' or `replace'). Leave all the old frame code as is, then implement anew everything needed for a frame-base. Andrew ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2003-06-26 14:07 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 4+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2003-06-25 16:51 Enable frame-base before frame-unwind? Andrew Cagney 2003-06-25 18:28 ` Daniel Jacobowitz 2003-06-26 4:56 ` Daniel Jacobowitz 2003-06-26 14:07 ` Andrew Cagney
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).