From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Randolph Chung To: Andrew Cagney Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [patch/rfa] Signal trampoline unwinder for hppa-hpux Date: Wed, 26 May 2004 05:36:00 -0000 Message-id: <20040526053609.GV7207@tausq.org> References: <20040520041746.GW566@tausq.org> <40AE3F20.2030205@gnu.org> <20040522015808.GF7207@tausq.org> <20040523002931.GO7207@tausq.org> <40B23320.90201@gnu.org> X-SW-Source: 2004-05/msg00729.html > Yes, definitly. Having to do instruction examination should be > considered a last resource. ok, this is checked in now too, but can someone please comment on this bit: ================================================================ Unfortunately this still fails a lot of the signal related testcases. It is not because of a problem with the signal unwinder though: On HPUX-SOM, there is an export stub inserted into the call sequence in some cases; the export stub is hit on the return path from indirect function calls, and apparently on return from a signal handler. This creates an extra frame in the backtrace, viz: (gdb) bt #0 0x000029e4 in handle_USR1 (sig=0) at ../../../gdb/gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/annota1.c:18 #1 0x000029c8 in handle_USR1 () at ../../../gdb/gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/annota1.c:17 #2 #3 main () at ../../../gdb/gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/annota1.c:40 Frame 1 comes from the export stub. Because of this, the pattern matching in the backtrace test fails. I am not sure if this is a problem with the test script or with the handling of export stubs -- am I supposed to somehow supress the export stub from showing up in the backtrace? (if so, how?) ================================================================ thanks randolph -- Randolph Chung Debian GNU/Linux Developer, hppa/ia64 ports http://www.tausq.org/