From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 5185 invoked by alias); 15 Oct 2003 23:06:24 -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 5178 invoked from network); 15 Oct 2003 23:06:23 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 15 Oct 2003 23:06:23 -0000 Received: from int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (int-mx1.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.254]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h9FN6NM02813 for ; Wed, 15 Oct 2003 19:06:23 -0400 Received: from pobox.corp.redhat.com (pobox.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.156]) by int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h9FN6Mr18960; Wed, 15 Oct 2003 19:06:22 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain (vpn50-39.rdu.redhat.com [172.16.50.39]) by pobox.corp.redhat.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h9FN6KwC012491; Wed, 15 Oct 2003 19:06:21 -0400 Received: (from kev@localhost) by localhost.localdomain (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h9FN6FX23203; Wed, 15 Oct 2003 16:06:15 -0700 Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2003 23:06:00 -0000 From: Kevin Buettner Message-Id: <1031015230615.ZM23202@localhost.localdomain> In-Reply-To: Michael Snyder "Re: [PATCH/SPARC-branch] Make call dummies on non-executable stack work" (Oct 15, 3:28pm) References: <200310151957.h9FJvfwc000383@elgar.kettenis.dyndns.org> <3F8DCA21.2080000@redhat.com> To: Michael Snyder , Mark Kettenis Subject: Re: [PATCH/SPARC-branch] Make call dummies on non-executable stack work Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-SW-Source: 2003-10/txt/msg00524.txt.bz2 On Oct 15, 3:28pm, Michael Snyder wrote: > Mark Kettenis wrote: > > The attached patch makes call dummies on a non-executable stack > > working. I checked this in on my SPARC branch. What do people think > > about checking this in on mainline? I don't think this will get much > > exposure on the branch. > > I guess the only way you would get a false positive here > would be if you took a SEGV while executing a breakpoint trap. > I *guess* that seems unlikely -- but I wonder if there's a > pathological case, or if one might see this happening while > porting gdb to a new target, an immature sim, or something? > > Is there a gotcha, for instance, for VLIW machines? > Might execute the trap, and another instruction simultaneously? > Kevin? I don't think there's any problem for IA-64. For FR-V, this might indeed be a gotcha. Unfortunately, although I've looked at the FR-V architecture manual, I'm unable to tell if this'd be a problem or not. (Sorry for the less than helpful reply...) Kevin