From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 7192 invoked by alias); 6 Aug 2004 19:33:09 -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 7184 invoked from network); 6 Aug 2004 19:33:08 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO walton.kettenis.dyndns.org) (213.93.77.109) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 6 Aug 2004 19:33:08 -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 i76JX3xp009711; Fri, 6 Aug 2004 21:33:03 +0200 (CEST) (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 i76JX311008035; Fri, 6 Aug 2004 21:33:04 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from kettenis@elgar.kettenis.dyndns.org) Received: (from kettenis@localhost) by elgar.kettenis.dyndns.org (8.12.6p3/8.12.6/Submit) id i76JX3HJ008032; Fri, 6 Aug 2004 21:33:03 +0200 (CEST) Date: Fri, 06 Aug 2004 19:33:00 -0000 Message-Id: <200408061933.i76JX3HJ008032@elgar.kettenis.dyndns.org> From: Mark Kettenis To: eliz@gnu.org CC: cagney@gnu.org, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com In-reply-to: <2914-Tue03Aug2004065313+0300-eliz@gnu.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH] Improve i386 prologue analyzer References: <200408012158.i71LwpRw033840@elgar.kettenis.dyndns.org> <3405-Mon02Aug2004070159+0300-eliz@gnu.org> <410EAFBB.5080102@gnu.org> <2914-Tue03Aug2004065313+0300-eliz@gnu.org> X-SW-Source: 2004-08/txt/msg00169.txt.bz2 Date: Tue, 03 Aug 2004 06:53:13 +0300 From: "Eli Zaretskii" > Date: Mon, 02 Aug 2004 17:18:51 -0400 > From: Andrew Cagney > > Should this be back-ported? Probably, especially if we are going to have GDB 6.2.1. This bug means that anyone who uses GCC 3.3 and later will see bogus backtraces in optimized programs. I was under the impression that it only affected GCC 3.4. Is GCC 3.3 affected too Eli? I'd really like this to get some exposure in HEAD before backporting it, but otherwise I do agree.