From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 8808 invoked by alias); 17 Dec 2002 15:12:36 -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 8790 invoked from network); 17 Dec 2002 15:12:33 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO crack.them.org) (65.125.64.184) by 209.249.29.67 with SMTP; 17 Dec 2002 15:12:33 -0000 Received: from nevyn.them.org ([66.93.61.169] ident=mail) by crack.them.org with asmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 18OLGb-0006Cg-00; Tue, 17 Dec 2002 11:12:25 -0600 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian)) id 18OJP6-0001Vs-00; Tue, 17 Dec 2002 10:13:04 -0500 Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2002 08:42:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Andrew Cagney Cc: Michal Ludvig , GDB Patches Subject: Re: [RFA] Artifical dwarf2 debug info Message-ID: <20021217151304.GA5778@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Andrew Cagney , Michal Ludvig , GDB Patches References: <3DFE14D9.7040102@redhat.com> <20021216181104.GA21047@nevyn.them.org> <3DFE1ECD.5080908@redhat.com> <20021216185750.GA24656@nevyn.them.org> <3DFE289B.3080904@redhat.com> <20021216193459.GA27215@nevyn.them.org> <3DFE3007.3040100@redhat.com> <20021216201117.GA31474@nevyn.them.org> <3DFF185B.9090806@suse.cz> <3DFF3353.2090803@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3DFF3353.2090803@redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.1i X-SW-Source: 2002-12/txt/msg00519.txt.bz2 On Tue, Dec 17, 2002 at 09:23:15AM -0500, Andrew Cagney wrote: > >Ehm ... what's the result regarding to my patch, guys? > > I think pending changes for the most part render the cornerstone of this > patch obsolete. This is because the dwarf2cfi code wont't be called > when the frame doesn't have dwarf2 info -> the case that this code is > trying to handle. > > The idea of being able to create debug info at run time, though, is very > much worth persuing. Eh, I don't agree at all. We'll be calling a function to figure out if the affected PC value has CFI information. Where's that function going to live? In the CFI reader presumably, and it would be the appropriate time to construct fake debug info. I think that Michal's patch would look substantively the same after these pending changes. -- Daniel Jacobowitz MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer