From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 8076 invoked by alias); 1 Nov 2003 00:44:44 -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 8069 invoked from network); 1 Nov 2003 00:44:43 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO nevyn.them.org) (66.93.172.17) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 1 Nov 2003 00:44:43 -0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 4.24 #1 (Debian)) id 1AFjsh-0003A5-CI for ; Fri, 31 Oct 2003 19:44:43 -0500 Date: Sat, 01 Nov 2003 00:44:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [commit] Don't call deprecated_inside_entry_file from ...id_unwind() Message-ID: <20031101004443.GB11987@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com References: <3FA2F789.5000306@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3FA2F789.5000306@redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.1i X-SW-Source: 2003-11/txt/msg00004.txt.bz2 On Fri, Oct 31, 2003 at 07:00:09PM -0500, Andrew Cagney wrote: > Hello, > > Sometime ago, while developing the frame unwind code using the d10v, I > added an innocent looking hack that stopped the d10v falling off the end > of its stack: > > - /* This is meant to halt the backtrace at "_start". Make sure we > - don't halt it at a generic dummy frame. */ > - if (func <= IMEM_START || inside_entry_file (func)) > - return; > > That logic being lifed from even older frame chain code. > > I then later fixed the underlying problem (inside_main_func was broken), > but forgot to remove that hack. > > Oops! > > That innocent looking code as quitely spread to at least 4 other > architectures (there was no comment saying "hey you don't need this"). > > Anyway, the attached patch removes all occurance of the hack. Are you certain that none of those other architectures needed the hack anyway? Also, snce GDB does support backtracing when main isn't even in the equation, I don't think we should break that unless the check is actually harmful. -- Daniel Jacobowitz MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer