From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 22036 invoked by alias); 13 Jan 2003 17:24:09 -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 21980 invoked from network); 13 Jan 2003 17:24:07 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO crack.them.org) (65.125.64.184) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 13 Jan 2003 17:24:07 -0000 Received: from nevyn.them.org ([66.93.61.169] ident=mail) by crack.them.org with asmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 18YACL-0006T0-00 for ; Mon, 13 Jan 2003 13:24:38 -0600 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian)) id 18Y8Jz-0002Uu-00 for ; Mon, 13 Jan 2003 12:24:23 -0500 Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2003 17:24:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [unwind-20030108-branch] Convert d10v to unwind mechanims Message-ID: <20030113172423.GA8893@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com References: <3E22F527.8050201@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3E22F527.8050201@redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.1i X-SW-Source: 2003-01/txt/msg00486.txt.bz2 On Mon, Jan 13, 2003 at 12:19:35PM -0500, Andrew Cagney wrote: > Hello, > > The attached converts the d10v to the new unwind mechanism. It creates > a new file: > d10v-frame.[hc] > which implements a d10v specific frame unwinder. The new file contains > one obvious hack do_d10v_frame_pop() (that needs to be added to the > standard set of unwind functions and purged of deprecated code), and > still needs some d10v code cleanup (e.g., shouldn't need to specify the > unused init_frame_extra_info). > > In implementing this, the code adds frame-unwind.[hc] which implements a > mechanims for maintaining registrary of frame unwinders and selecting > one (is frame-unwinder, or frame-winder, or ..., better?). > > Finally, it contains the change: > > get_frame_base (struct frame_info *fi) > { > - return fi->frame; > + struct frame_id id = frame_id_unwind (fi->next); > + return id.base; > } > > The issue is that, for a dummy frame, the code delays doing an unwind of > the previous frame until it's rewuested. This, unfortunatly, leaves the > frame's base undefined. A case of duplicating information finally > comming back and biteing us. The above is the correct fix. Further, I > think it highlights why I need to make `struct frame_info' opaque - so > that this redundency can be eliminated. > > Now to break this down into digestable chunks that can be reviewed for > the mainline. I like it. I've got a tangential style question that I want to ask now, though... if you're creating additional target-specific files, can we consider putting them under config/ instead of in the top level? -- Daniel Jacobowitz MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer