From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 19887 invoked by alias); 13 Sep 2002 18:20:23 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 19878 invoked from network); 13 Sep 2002 18:20:22 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 13 Sep 2002 18:20:22 -0000 Received: from int-mx2.corp.redhat.com (nat-pool-rdu-dmz.redhat.com [172.16.52.200]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g8DI3ew21143 for ; Fri, 13 Sep 2002 14:03:40 -0400 Received: from potter.sfbay.redhat.com (potter.sfbay.redhat.com [172.16.27.15]) by int-mx2.corp.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g8DIKEd22454; Fri, 13 Sep 2002 14:20:20 -0400 Received: from romulus.sfbay.redhat.com (IDENT:EhFkvR7en85LLR7hmpRvv59WGlYZT/wv@romulus.sfbay.redhat.com [172.16.27.251]) by potter.sfbay.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g8DIKDC11062; Fri, 13 Sep 2002 11:20:14 -0700 Received: (from kev@localhost) by romulus.sfbay.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) id g8DIKBY18900; Fri, 13 Sep 2002 11:20:11 -0700 Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2002 11:20:00 -0000 From: Kevin Buettner Message-Id: <1020913182011.ZM18899@localhost.localdomain> In-Reply-To: Andrew Cagney "[patch/mips] Use unwind in mips_get_saved_register" (Sep 13, 1:55pm) References: <3D822687.9080300@ges.redhat.com> To: Andrew Cagney , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [patch/mips] Use unwind in mips_get_saved_register MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-SW-Source: 2002-09/txt/msg00255.txt.bz2 On Sep 13, 1:55pm, Andrew Cagney wrote: > The attached is ``two steps forward, one step back'' patch. > > It modifies mips_get_saved_register() so that it uses the new unwind > code. The new unwind code automatically handles the fetching of > registers in dummy-frames. Unfortunatly, the change doesn't fix the > problem of the MIPS fiddling memory register reads dependant on the > current ABI. I posted a similar patch last month: http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb-patches/2002-08/msg00198.html At that time you rejected it for the reasons given in: http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb-patches/2002-08/msg00214.html http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb-patches/2002-08/msg00235.html Please explain what has changed between then and now which makes it acceptable to now use frame_register_unwind()? Puzzled, Kevin