From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 23532 invoked by alias); 13 Jun 2002 17:32:06 -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 23435 invoked from network); 13 Jun 2002 17:32:02 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO nevyn.them.org) (66.19.120.103) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 13 Jun 2002 17:32:02 -0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 17IYSP-00077d-00; Thu, 13 Jun 2002 13:32:25 -0400 Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2002 10:32:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Paul Hilfinger Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: RFA/mips: Use ".pdr" sections generated by GAS Message-ID: <20020613173225.GA27321@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Paul Hilfinger , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com References: <20020613141706.GA1625@nevyn.them.org> <200206131701.KAA26726@tully.CS.Berkeley.EDU> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200206131701.KAA26726@tully.CS.Berkeley.EDU> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.1i X-SW-Source: 2002-06/txt/msg00220.txt.bz2 On Thu, Jun 13, 2002 at 10:01:42AM -0700, Paul Hilfinger wrote: > > > >ECOFF debug information (mdebug) included the concept of a PDR. MIPS uses > > >these for unwinding through functions, among other things. Right now we > > >can > > >get them from mdebug or from code inspection. But current GNU binutils > > >emits ".pdr" sections instead of using the old ".mdebug" style debug info. > > According to its documentation, exc_unwind on IRIX 6.5 currently uses > .debug_frame information for unwinding purposes (and its native > assembler now does not produce PDR sections there). I am not familiar > with the set of all MIPS platforms, so I am moved to ask whether it > would (1) be a good idea if or (2) be unnecessary for GDB to do the > same thing. Did the IRIX 6.5 assembler ever produce PDR sections? I was unaware of this. Yes, we should use .debug_frame (when it is available). Dan Berlin mentioned this a week or so ago on gcc@ also. Most of the code is there, it just needs to be hooked in. -- Daniel Jacobowitz Carnegie Mellon University MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer