From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 30220 invoked by alias); 12 Feb 2005 16:05:16 -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 30104 invoked from network); 12 Feb 2005 16:05:05 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO nevyn.them.org) (66.93.172.17) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 12 Feb 2005 16:05:05 -0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 4.44 #1 (Debian)) id 1CzzlV-0008Su-1k; Sat, 12 Feb 2005 11:05:01 -0500 Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2005 09:41:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Nathan Sidwell Cc: Mark Kettenis , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com, paul@codesourcery.com Subject: Re: [patch] Dwarf2 virtual frame pointer Message-ID: <20050212160500.GA32454@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Nathan Sidwell , Mark Kettenis , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com, paul@codesourcery.com References: <420B2F90.4060403@codesourcery.com> <200502120312.j1C3CSid022971@copland.sibelius.xs4all.nl> <420DFEDC.90002@codesourcery.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <420DFEDC.90002@codesourcery.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6+20040907i X-SW-Source: 2005-02/txt/msg00123.txt.bz2 On Sat, Feb 12, 2005 at 01:04:28PM +0000, Nathan Sidwell wrote: > Mark Kettenis wrote: > > >Almost certainly no. Replacing `struct frame *next_frame' with > >`CORE_ADDR pc' is moving backward instead of forward. Any functions > >that starts with legacy_ should not be used in generic code like the > >code in dwarf2-frame.c. > oh, ok. > > >Can you explains what you're trying to accomplish? > > > >If you're trying to use the DWARF CFI for anything else than unwinding > >the stack, like finding out whether the location of local variables is > >relative to $sp or $fp then rethink your strategy. This is not what > >the DWARF CFI is for. > > ok. Then how do I find out that information? The compiler (gcc 3.4) is > emitting DW_OP_fbreg location information for the local variables, should > it be emitting something else? DW_OP_fbreg is fine. It's not relative to the CFA. It's relative to the value of DW_AT_frame_base in the containing function. Recent versions of GCC can emit location lists for DW_AT_frame_base, making it just about as accurate as the CFA. I'm not sure when that was introduced. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery, LLC