From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 25147 invoked by alias); 31 Jul 2003 19:20:07 -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 25029 invoked from network); 31 Jul 2003 19:20:06 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO nevyn.them.org) (66.93.172.17) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 31 Jul 2003 19:20:06 -0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 4.20 #1 (Debian)) id 19iIy3-0004QN-DO for ; Thu, 31 Jul 2003 15:20:03 -0400 Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2003 19:20:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: RFA: modernization of ia64-tdep.c with new frame model for gdb-6.0 branch Message-ID: <20030731192002.GA16977@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com References: <3F283061.4060007@redhat.com> <3F296809.9000402@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3F296809.9000402@redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.1i X-SW-Source: 2003-07/txt/msg00560.txt.bz2 On Thu, Jul 31, 2003 at 03:03:37PM -0400, J. Johnston wrote: > I found the fix for making this patch work on the mainline as well. It > turns out that Daniel J.'s patch that verifies that the pc and function > address are in the same section trips up for the ia64 printf calls. > I had added a check in examine_prologue which caught this problem and > recognized that the cfm didn't match up so we should treat the function > as frameless. The fix is simply to set the cache frameless > flag on by default. This corresponds to the new examine_prologue() > logic which assumes frameless until proven otherwise. Now, when > frame_func_unwind() > returns 0 when it finds the pc and the function it is supposed to be in > are in different sections, the cache will be marked frameless and I will > correctly look at current register values rather than depend on the cache. > > I have resubmitted the patch including the one line change. Hrm, why is that triggering for printf? Is it correct, or are we stopped in some trampoline? -- Daniel Jacobowitz MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer