* [PATCH] Fix SPARC backtraces
@ 2004-03-04 10:10 Mark Kettenis
2004-03-19 0:09 ` Mark Kettenis
2004-03-19 0:09 ` Andrew Cagney
0 siblings, 2 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Mark Kettenis @ 2004-03-04 10:10 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gdb-patches
As discussed before on the list, this makes sure we do the full frame
analysis even if %fp is zero. This makes us do proper backtraces if a
frameless function was called from the outermost frame.
Committed to mainline,
Mark
Index: ChangeLog
from Mark Kettenis <kettenis@gnu.org>
* sparc-tdep.c (sparc_frame_cache): Don't bail out if %fp is zero.
Reorganize code a bit.
Index: sparc-tdep.c
===================================================================
RCS file: /cvs/src/src/gdb/sparc-tdep.c,v
retrieving revision 1.149
diff -u -p -r1.149 sparc-tdep.c
--- sparc-tdep.c 7 Feb 2004 20:40:35 -0000 1.149
+++ sparc-tdep.c 4 Mar 2004 10:03:28 -0000
@@ -615,14 +615,6 @@ sparc_frame_cache (struct frame_info *ne
cache = sparc_alloc_frame_cache ();
*this_cache = cache;
- /* In priciple, for normal frames, %fp (%i6) holds the frame
- pointer, which holds the base address for the current stack
- frame. */
-
- cache->base = frame_unwind_register_unsigned (next_frame, SPARC_FP_REGNUM);
- if (cache->base == 0)
- return cache;
-
cache->pc = frame_func_unwind (next_frame);
if (cache->pc != 0)
{
@@ -632,10 +624,18 @@ sparc_frame_cache (struct frame_info *ne
if (cache->frameless_p)
{
- /* We didn't find a valid frame, which means that CACHE->base
- currently holds the frame pointer for our calling frame. */
- cache->base = frame_unwind_register_unsigned (next_frame,
- SPARC_SP_REGNUM);
+ /* This function is frameless, so %fp (%i6) holds the frame
+ pointer for our calling frame. Use %sp (%o6) as this frame's
+ base address. */
+ cache->base =
+ frame_unwind_register_unsigned (next_frame, SPARC_SP_REGNUM);
+ }
+ else
+ {
+ /* For normal frames, %fp (%i6) holds the frame pointer, the
+ base address for the current stack frame. */
+ cache->base =
+ frame_unwind_register_unsigned (next_frame, SPARC_FP_REGNUM);
}
return cache;
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] Fix SPARC backtraces
2004-03-19 0:09 ` Andrew Cagney
@ 2004-03-05 5:11 ` Andrew Cagney
2004-03-19 0:09 ` Mark Kettenis
1 sibling, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Andrew Cagney @ 2004-03-05 5:11 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Mark Kettenis; +Cc: gdb-patches
> As discussed before on the list, this makes sure we do the full frame
> analysis even if %fp is zero. This makes us do proper backtraces if a
> frameless function was called from the outermost frame.
Should this go on the branch? It appears to make things more robust.
Andrew
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] Fix SPARC backtraces
2004-03-19 0:09 ` Mark Kettenis
@ 2004-03-05 15:32 ` Mark Kettenis
0 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Mark Kettenis @ 2004-03-05 15:32 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: cagney; +Cc: gdb-patches
Date: Fri, 05 Mar 2004 00:11:24 -0500
From: Andrew Cagney <cagney@gnu.org>
> As discussed before on the list, this makes sure we do the full frame
> analysis even if %fp is zero. This makes us do proper backtraces if a
> frameless function was called from the outermost frame.
Should this go on the branch? It appears to make things more robust.
Shouldn't hurt, although from a user perspective it probably doesn't
matter that much, since the failure scenario only kicks in if you're
debugging "beyond main".
Anyway, committed the the branch now too.
Mark
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] Fix SPARC backtraces
2004-03-19 0:09 ` Andrew Cagney
2004-03-05 5:11 ` Andrew Cagney
@ 2004-03-19 0:09 ` Mark Kettenis
2004-03-05 15:32 ` Mark Kettenis
1 sibling, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Mark Kettenis @ 2004-03-19 0:09 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: cagney; +Cc: gdb-patches
Date: Fri, 05 Mar 2004 00:11:24 -0500
From: Andrew Cagney <cagney@gnu.org>
> As discussed before on the list, this makes sure we do the full frame
> analysis even if %fp is zero. This makes us do proper backtraces if a
> frameless function was called from the outermost frame.
Should this go on the branch? It appears to make things more robust.
Shouldn't hurt, although from a user perspective it probably doesn't
matter that much, since the failure scenario only kicks in if you're
debugging "beyond main".
Anyway, committed the the branch now too.
Mark
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] Fix SPARC backtraces
2004-03-04 10:10 [PATCH] Fix SPARC backtraces Mark Kettenis
2004-03-19 0:09 ` Mark Kettenis
@ 2004-03-19 0:09 ` Andrew Cagney
2004-03-05 5:11 ` Andrew Cagney
2004-03-19 0:09 ` Mark Kettenis
1 sibling, 2 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Andrew Cagney @ 2004-03-19 0:09 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Mark Kettenis; +Cc: gdb-patches
> As discussed before on the list, this makes sure we do the full frame
> analysis even if %fp is zero. This makes us do proper backtraces if a
> frameless function was called from the outermost frame.
Should this go on the branch? It appears to make things more robust.
Andrew
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* [PATCH] Fix SPARC backtraces
2004-03-04 10:10 [PATCH] Fix SPARC backtraces Mark Kettenis
@ 2004-03-19 0:09 ` Mark Kettenis
2004-03-19 0:09 ` Andrew Cagney
1 sibling, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Mark Kettenis @ 2004-03-19 0:09 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gdb-patches
As discussed before on the list, this makes sure we do the full frame
analysis even if %fp is zero. This makes us do proper backtraces if a
frameless function was called from the outermost frame.
Committed to mainline,
Mark
Index: ChangeLog
from Mark Kettenis <kettenis@gnu.org>
* sparc-tdep.c (sparc_frame_cache): Don't bail out if %fp is zero.
Reorganize code a bit.
Index: sparc-tdep.c
===================================================================
RCS file: /cvs/src/src/gdb/sparc-tdep.c,v
retrieving revision 1.149
diff -u -p -r1.149 sparc-tdep.c
--- sparc-tdep.c 7 Feb 2004 20:40:35 -0000 1.149
+++ sparc-tdep.c 4 Mar 2004 10:03:28 -0000
@@ -615,14 +615,6 @@ sparc_frame_cache (struct frame_info *ne
cache = sparc_alloc_frame_cache ();
*this_cache = cache;
- /* In priciple, for normal frames, %fp (%i6) holds the frame
- pointer, which holds the base address for the current stack
- frame. */
-
- cache->base = frame_unwind_register_unsigned (next_frame, SPARC_FP_REGNUM);
- if (cache->base == 0)
- return cache;
-
cache->pc = frame_func_unwind (next_frame);
if (cache->pc != 0)
{
@@ -632,10 +624,18 @@ sparc_frame_cache (struct frame_info *ne
if (cache->frameless_p)
{
- /* We didn't find a valid frame, which means that CACHE->base
- currently holds the frame pointer for our calling frame. */
- cache->base = frame_unwind_register_unsigned (next_frame,
- SPARC_SP_REGNUM);
+ /* This function is frameless, so %fp (%i6) holds the frame
+ pointer for our calling frame. Use %sp (%o6) as this frame's
+ base address. */
+ cache->base =
+ frame_unwind_register_unsigned (next_frame, SPARC_SP_REGNUM);
+ }
+ else
+ {
+ /* For normal frames, %fp (%i6) holds the frame pointer, the
+ base address for the current stack frame. */
+ cache->base =
+ frame_unwind_register_unsigned (next_frame, SPARC_FP_REGNUM);
}
return cache;
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2004-03-05 15:32 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2004-03-04 10:10 [PATCH] Fix SPARC backtraces Mark Kettenis
2004-03-19 0:09 ` Mark Kettenis
2004-03-19 0:09 ` Andrew Cagney
2004-03-05 5:11 ` Andrew Cagney
2004-03-19 0:09 ` Mark Kettenis
2004-03-05 15:32 ` Mark Kettenis
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox