From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 23286 invoked by alias); 11 Dec 2007 10:44:18 -0000 Received: (qmail 23276 invoked by uid 22791); 11 Dec 2007 10:44:17 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from ics.u-strasbg.fr (HELO ics.u-strasbg.fr) (130.79.112.250) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Tue, 11 Dec 2007 10:43:36 +0000 Received: from ICSMULLER (unknown [130.79.244.145]) by ics.u-strasbg.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id D2B16187023; Tue, 11 Dec 2007 11:47:49 +0100 (CET) From: "Pierre Muller" To: "'Mark Kettenis'" Cc: References: <000001c83b4a$573b4560$05b1d020$@u-strasbg.fr> <200712101854.lBAIs91J031646@brahms.sibelius.xs4all.nl> In-Reply-To: <200712101854.lBAIs91J031646@brahms.sibelius.xs4all.nl> Subject: RE: [RFC] Enhance backtrace for microsoft system DLL calls Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2007 17:29:00 -0000 Message-ID: <002701c83be2$ac2a9a60$047fcf20$@u-strasbg.fr> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0 Content-Language: en-us Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2007-12/txt/msg00159.txt.bz2 > -----Original Message----- > From: Mark Kettenis [mailto:mark.kettenis@xs4all.nl] > Sent: Monday, December 10, 2007 7:54 PM > To: muller@ics.u-strasbg.fr > Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org > Subject: Re: [RFC] Enhance backtrace for microsoft system DLL calls > > > From: "Pierre Muller" > > Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2007 17:33:05 +0100 > > > > The main question is whether this patch is acceptable > > for gdb as it is in a i386 common file, while > > it most probably only applies to MS operating system. > > I have no problem with adding this to the generic i386, but I'd prefer > to put this code in a seperate function called > i386_skip_nops(CORE_ADDR pc); I have no objections to that proposal and can change my patch accordingly, but the question is then: Should I check all possible no-op codes? or only the one we know is used in one case i.e. 'mov %edi, %edi' There are many other nops: 'nop' instruction itself of course but also all 'mov %reg,%reg' are no-ops, even if preceded by size modifiers of 1 or 2 byte regs. Testing all these might be a bit silly, no? Thus, I would only test 'mov %edi,%edi' adding Pedro's comments about its use in microsoft's operating system dll's. But if you think it is worthwhile to test other instructions, I would like to know it before updating the patch. Pierre Muller