From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 6945 invoked by alias); 7 Jul 2003 14:16:28 -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 6938 invoked from network); 7 Jul 2003 14:16:28 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO crack.them.org) (146.82.138.56) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 7 Jul 2003 14:16:28 -0000 Received: from dsl093-172-017.pit1.dsl.speakeasy.net ([66.93.172.17] helo=nevyn.them.org ident=mail) by crack.them.org with asmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 19ZWo5-00063S-00 for ; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 09:17:29 -0500 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian)) id 19ZWms-00081A-00 for ; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 10:16:14 -0400 Date: Mon, 07 Jul 2003 14:16:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [patch, rfc, 6?] Enable identical frame sanity check Message-ID: <20030707141608.GC27227@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com References: <3F03241B.1020908@redhat.com> <20030702183600.GB8828@nevyn.them.org> <3F044B63.8070407@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3F044B63.8070407@redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.1i X-SW-Source: 2003-07/txt/msg00118.txt.bz2 On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 11:27:31AM -0400, Andrew Cagney wrote: > >On Wed, Jul 02, 2003 at 02:27:39PM -0400, Andrew Cagney wrote: > > > >>Hello, > >> > >>This patch enables the `is the prev frame identical to this frame' check > >>in get_prev_frame(). I forgot to enable it when I switched the frame ID > >>code from using the frame's PC to using the frame's function. Noticed > >>this when reviewing Daniel's Arm frame update. > >> > >>It should probably go straight into the mainline (tested on i386 and > >>d10v). > > > > > >d10v, AVR, and soon ARM all include this check as a silent stop > >condition rather than an error... perhaps that has some significance. > > Ulgh! `prior art' :-) > > >I know it's hit at least on ARM. > > It hit the d10v as well, I'd have not otherwize added the test. > > >I'd have to dumb down the prologue > >analyzer if I wanted it not to be, or else figure out where an > >inside_entry_func check has gone completely missing in the new frame > >code. Just putting it unwind_this_id didn't work (don't remember why > >not). > > Sounds like it should be treated like the stack bottom? > > The other choice is to treat it as undefined and accept the warning. Both make sense to me. Probably the warning is better. I think we should figure out why inside_entry_func isn't stopping the backtrace before this even becomes an issue, though... -- Daniel Jacobowitz MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer