From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 32697 invoked by alias); 6 Dec 2004 23:06:34 -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 32674 invoked from network); 6 Dec 2004 23:06:31 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO nevyn.them.org) (66.93.172.17) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 6 Dec 2004 23:06:31 -0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 4.34 #1 (Debian)) id 1CbRw7-0008CV-2P; Mon, 06 Dec 2004 18:06:31 -0500 Date: Mon, 06 Dec 2004 23:27:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Randolph Chung Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [RFC/hppa] Change handling of stubs in the return path Message-ID: <20041206230631.GB31381@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Randolph Chung , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com References: <20041206223712.GQ6359@tausq.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20041206223712.GQ6359@tausq.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.5.1+cvs20040105i X-SW-Source: 2004-12/txt/msg00177.txt.bz2 On Mon, Dec 06, 2004 at 02:37:12PM -0800, Randolph Chung wrote: > The following patch changes the behavior of the unwinder for hpux so > that export stubs are not visible when unwinding the stack. this is > desired for several reasons as discussed on this list recently: > > 1. it is less confusing to the user (and more consistent with how > gdb used to work) > 2. it improves the behavior for commands like "up" and "finish", > because the user expects to return to the caller of the current > function, not to a stub that was synthesized by the toolchain > > This fixes all the FAILs in funcargs.exp and some of the ones in > callfuncs.exp (and possibly others, i haven't ran the whole test) > > Note that the stub unwinder is still there for the cases when we single > step into a stub. There are some issues with the stub unwinder for HPUX > as well, but I'll fix that separately. > > comments? is this ok? Does this work OK when single stepping out of something, i.e. back into a stub? > +static void > +hppa_hpux_unwind_adjust_stub(struct frame_info *next_frame, CORE_ADDR base, > + struct trad_frame_saved_reg *saved_regs) Formatting ;-) -- Daniel Jacobowitz