From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-return-18748-listarch-gdb=sources.redhat.com@sources.redhat.com>
Received: (qmail 17672 invoked by alias); 21 Jul 2004 22:05:33 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gdb-subscribe@sources.redhat.com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb/>
List-Post: <mailto:gdb@sources.redhat.com>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-help@sources.redhat.com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: gdb-owner@sources.redhat.com
Received: (qmail 17646 invoked from network); 21 Jul 2004 22:05:30 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31)
  by sourceware.org with SMTP; 21 Jul 2004 22:05:30 -0000
Received: from int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (int-mx1.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.254])
	by mx1.redhat.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i6LM5Ue3016521
	for <gdb@sources.redhat.com>; Wed, 21 Jul 2004 18:05:30 -0400
Received: from localhost.redhat.com (porkchop.devel.redhat.com [172.16.58.2])
	by int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i6LM5Ta14068;
	Wed, 21 Jul 2004 18:05:29 -0400
Received: from gnu.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id B36EF2B9D; Wed, 21 Jul 2004 18:05:34 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <40FEE8AE.7080300@gnu.org>
Date: Wed, 21 Jul 2004 22:17:00 -0000
From: Andrew Cagney <cagney@gnu.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; NetBSD macppc; en-GB; rv:1.4.1) Gecko/20040217
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Mark Kettenis <kettenis@chello.nl>
Cc: eliz@gnu.org, gdb@sources.redhat.com
Subject: Re: [6.2] PROBLEMS file
References: <40FB3F1F.3040900@gnu.org> <1659-Mon19Jul2004215127+0300-eliz@gnu.org> <200407212059.i6LKxgQ9019045@copland.kettenis.dyndns.org>
In-Reply-To: <200407212059.i6LKxgQ9019045@copland.kettenis.dyndns.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-SW-Source: 2004-07/txt/msg00273.txt.bz2

> So IMHO there is no regression here.  PR 1505 should be closed.  If
> the length of the backtraces is a problem, we should probably set a
> sensible backtrace limit.

Try and convince a user of that :-)  This is, right or wrong, a 
situtation where we're the ones that get to push for a solution.

To that end, two ideas:

- add a GNU extension to dwarf2 that identifies the frame as outer-most

- have the CFI unwinds back to the exact same identical frame (causing 
GDB to throw up its hands)

Andrew