From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 7361 invoked by alias); 10 Nov 2005 00:17:56 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org Received: (qmail 7174 invoked by uid 22791); 10 Nov 2005 00:17:53 -0000 Received: from s142-179-108-108.bc.hsia.telus.net (HELO takamaka.act-europe.fr) (142.179.108.108) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.30-dev) with ESMTP; Thu, 10 Nov 2005 00:17:53 +0000 Received: by takamaka.act-europe.fr (Postfix, from userid 507) id CAB5047E79; Wed, 9 Nov 2005 16:17:50 -0800 (PST) Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2005 01:31:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Randolph Chung Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [hppa] FYI: confusion in unwind descriptor field meaning Message-ID: <20051110001750.GB1635@adacore.com> References: <20051109203108.GX1635@adacore.com> <43728C6E.5010206@tausq.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <43728C6E.5010206@tausq.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i X-SW-Source: 2005-11/txt/msg00120.txt.bz2 > Be careful here, some of this is to work around gcc's interpretation of > these fields, which does not always correspond to the documentation. gcc > only uses a few of the bits in the unwind record. Grumble. Yes, I know. It's the reason why I never got around to submit the few changes we made locally. Our GCC has some local changes that make the unwind descriptor more compatible between the two models. I am still asking the details to the hppa specialist at AdaCore, but it seems that starting with GCC 3.4, the frame was setup in a more compatible way already. If you're interested, I'll let you know the details of our implementation. -- Joel