From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 2147 invoked by alias); 6 Dec 2004 14:43:39 -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 1982 invoked from network); 6 Dec 2004 14:43:26 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO nevyn.them.org) (66.93.172.17) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 6 Dec 2004 14:43:26 -0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 4.34 #1 (Debian)) id 1CbK5G-0003nU-D5; Mon, 06 Dec 2004 09:43:26 -0500 Date: Mon, 06 Dec 2004 15:35:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Randolph Chung Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [patch/rfa] allow unwinding "past main" for dummy frames Message-ID: <20041206144326.GB14232@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Randolph Chung , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com References: <20041206032726.GB6359@tausq.org> <20041206034013.GA31944@nevyn.them.org> <20041206041458.GF6359@tausq.org> <20041206042736.GA496@nevyn.them.org> <20041206045933.GG6359@tausq.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20041206045933.GG6359@tausq.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.5.1+cvs20040105i X-SW-Source: 2004-12/txt/msg00162.txt.bz2 On Sun, Dec 05, 2004 at 08:59:33PM -0800, Randolph Chung wrote: > > Some sense, but not good sense. > > > > Can we edit the space registers ourselves? If so, why don't we rely on > > that? I'm not talking about the call, just the return. So generate a > > call to __gcc_plt_call with a return address anywhere you please, and > > after the dummy call when we restore the saved regcache the space > > registers will be right again. So you could just use _start. > > the problem is precisely that ... the register that we need to restore > (pcsqh/pcsqt) cannot be written to by gdb :( "can not" is a funny thing. Can it be written by userspace? If so, you could synthesize an update onto the stack and execute that, but I agree that's unnecessarily messy. Patch is OK, but definitely needs a comment. And the comment should mention HP/UX specifically. -- Daniel Jacobowitz