From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 17632 invoked by alias); 5 Mar 2004 15:32:47 -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 17624 invoked from network); 5 Mar 2004 15:32:46 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO walton.kettenis.dyndns.org) (213.93.115.144) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 5 Mar 2004 15:32:46 -0000 Received: from elgar.kettenis.dyndns.org (elgar.kettenis.dyndns.org [192.168.0.2]) by walton.kettenis.dyndns.org (8.12.6p3/8.12.6) with ESMTP id i25FWd0u006708; Fri, 5 Mar 2004 16:32:39 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from kettenis@elgar.kettenis.dyndns.org) Received: from elgar.kettenis.dyndns.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by elgar.kettenis.dyndns.org (8.12.6p3/8.12.6) with ESMTP id i25FWdEU035551; Fri, 5 Mar 2004 16:32:39 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from kettenis@elgar.kettenis.dyndns.org) Received: (from kettenis@localhost) by elgar.kettenis.dyndns.org (8.12.6p3/8.12.6/Submit) id i25FWcPC035548; Fri, 5 Mar 2004 16:32:38 +0100 (CET) Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2004 00:09:00 -0000 Message-Id: <200403051532.i25FWcPC035548@elgar.kettenis.dyndns.org> From: Mark Kettenis To: cagney@gnu.org CC: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com In-reply-to: <40480BFC.10801@gnu.org> (message from Andrew Cagney on Fri, 05 Mar 2004 00:11:24 -0500) Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix SPARC backtraces References: <200403041010.i24AAqc2003176@elgar.kettenis.dyndns.org> <40480BFC.10801@gnu.org> X-SW-Source: 2004-03/txt/msg00103.txt.bz2 Date: Fri, 05 Mar 2004 00:11:24 -0500 From: Andrew Cagney > 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 From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 17632 invoked by alias); 5 Mar 2004 15:32:47 -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 17624 invoked from network); 5 Mar 2004 15:32:46 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO walton.kettenis.dyndns.org) (213.93.115.144) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 5 Mar 2004 15:32:46 -0000 Received: from elgar.kettenis.dyndns.org (elgar.kettenis.dyndns.org [192.168.0.2]) by walton.kettenis.dyndns.org (8.12.6p3/8.12.6) with ESMTP id i25FWd0u006708; Fri, 5 Mar 2004 16:32:39 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from kettenis@elgar.kettenis.dyndns.org) Received: from elgar.kettenis.dyndns.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by elgar.kettenis.dyndns.org (8.12.6p3/8.12.6) with ESMTP id i25FWdEU035551; Fri, 5 Mar 2004 16:32:39 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from kettenis@elgar.kettenis.dyndns.org) Received: (from kettenis@localhost) by elgar.kettenis.dyndns.org (8.12.6p3/8.12.6/Submit) id i25FWcPC035548; Fri, 5 Mar 2004 16:32:38 +0100 (CET) Date: Fri, 05 Mar 2004 15:32:00 -0000 Message-ID: <200403051532.i25FWcPC035548@elgar.kettenis.dyndns.org> From: Mark Kettenis To: cagney@gnu.org CC: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com In-reply-to: <40480BFC.10801@gnu.org> (message from Andrew Cagney on Fri, 05 Mar 2004 00:11:24 -0500) Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix SPARC backtraces References: <200403041010.i24AAqc2003176@elgar.kettenis.dyndns.org> <40480BFC.10801@gnu.org> X-SW-Source: 2004-03.o/txt/msg00103.txt Message-ID: <20040305153200.C0QLpcXBGW1AAOhaoJx2Mc_f74VZ0p_h9PfzBwGbfM0@z> Date: Fri, 05 Mar 2004 00:11:24 -0500 From: Andrew Cagney > 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