From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 8057 invoked by alias); 9 Sep 2003 03:30:54 -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 8050 invoked from network); 9 Sep 2003 03:30:53 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO nevyn.them.org) (66.93.172.17) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 9 Sep 2003 03:30:53 -0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 4.22 #1 (Debian)) id 19wZDR-0002KT-4B for ; Mon, 08 Sep 2003 23:30:53 -0400 Date: Tue, 09 Sep 2003 03:30:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [rfa/6.0] Better handle unspecified CFI values Message-ID: <20030909033053.GA8904@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com References: <3F593115.4030407@redhat.com> <20030906213351.GA1101@nevyn.them.org> <3F5D1AE7.7020306@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3F5D1AE7.7020306@redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.1i X-SW-Source: 2003-09/txt/msg00147.txt.bz2 On Mon, Sep 08, 2003 at 08:12:23PM -0400, Andrew Cagney wrote: > >On Fri, Sep 05, 2003 at 08:57:57PM -0400, Andrew Cagney wrote: > > > > >>- delete the SP_REGNUM hack from the REG_UNDEFINED rule (it's no longer > >>needed, I think) > > > > > >Leaving the hack in REG_UNSPECIFIED? Yes, I'm pretty sure you're > >right. > > Yes, leaving the hack in REG_UNSPECIFIED - I know that one's needed :-) > > >>- add a check/complaint for the SP v CFA problem. > > > > > >Could you hold off on the complaint until there's a valid way to > >specify the SP in the unwind information? Right now there isn't one, > >as I described on the dwarf2 list three weeks ago. > > Arrrrgh. So "sp" should be specified as the same value as the "cfa" > register? Yes - normally. On S/390, stdcall, et cetera (anywhere where the hack would be wrong) it gets even worse. We can only compute expressions describing a memory location where the register is saved, not computed values. For stack pointers (and maybe frame pointers on some architectures?) this isn't good enough. Thanks for addressing this! -- Daniel Jacobowitz MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer