From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 20934 invoked by alias); 3 Nov 2004 22:37:09 -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 20923 invoked from network); 3 Nov 2004 22:37:08 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO pippin.tausq.org) (64.81.244.94) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 3 Nov 2004 22:37:08 -0000 Received: by pippin.tausq.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 8B53BCE764; Wed, 3 Nov 2004 14:37:11 -0800 (PST) Date: Wed, 03 Nov 2004 22:37:00 -0000 From: Randolph Chung To: Andrew Cagney Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [patch/hppa/rfa] unwind fix for functions with no debug info Message-ID: <20041103223711.GG4249@tausq.org> Reply-To: Randolph Chung References: <20041103174449.GD4249@tausq.org> <41895A80.1090500@gnu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <41895A80.1090500@gnu.org> X-GPG: for GPG key, see http://www.tausq.org/gpg.txt User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.5.1+cvs20040105i X-SW-Source: 2004-11/txt/msg00050.txt.bz2 > Ok for 6.3 and mainline with a comment/change log tweak: > > The convention is for the ChangeLog to record what was changed while the > code records why it was changed. will do. thanks. I'm still looking at another aspect of this problem: For example, in this backtrace: (gdb) bt #0 0x406510a8 in Tcl_Finalize () from /usr/lib/libtcl8.4.so.0 #1 0x40650de0 in Tcl_Exit () from /usr/lib/libtcl8.4.so.0 #2 0x40131224 in exp_new_i_simple () from /usr/lib/libexpect5.42.so.1 #3 0x406273b8 in TclInvokeStringCommand () from /usr/lib/libtcl8.4.so.0 #4 0x40628730 in TclEvalObjvInternal () from /usr/lib/libtcl8.4.so.0 #5 0x406293e8 in Tcl_EvalEx () from /usr/lib/libtcl8.4.so.0 #6 0x406297bc in Tcl_Eval () from /usr/lib/libtcl8.4.so.0 #7 0x00010bc0 in main () at frame #2, 0x40131224 is not actually in exp_new_i_simple, but in another function with no recorded name. this backtrace is confusing; possibly we should show "#2 0x40131224 in ??? from ..." instead? thoughts? randolph -- Randolph Chung Debian GNU/Linux Developer, hppa/ia64 ports http://www.tausq.org/