From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 4136 invoked by alias); 13 Nov 2005 18:23:00 -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 4125 invoked by uid 22791); 13 Nov 2005 18:22:58 -0000 Received: from nile.gnat.com (HELO nile.gnat.com) (205.232.38.5) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.30-dev) with ESMTP; Sun, 13 Nov 2005 18:22:58 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-nile.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C4B8E48CDA3; Sun, 13 Nov 2005 13:22:56 -0500 (EST) Received: from nile.gnat.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (nile.gnat.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 16747-02-8; Sun, 13 Nov 2005 13:22:56 -0500 (EST) Received: from takamaka.act-europe.fr (s142-179-108-108.bc.hsia.telus.net [142.179.108.108]) by nile.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 448B848CDA2; Sun, 13 Nov 2005 13:22:56 -0500 (EST) Received: by takamaka.act-europe.fr (Postfix, from userid 507) id 839C847E79; Sun, 13 Nov 2005 10:22:55 -0800 (PST) Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2005 18:36:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Randolph Chung , Jim Blandy , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [hppa] FYI: confusion in unwind descriptor field meaning Message-ID: <20051113182255.GV1635@adacore.com> References: <20051109203108.GX1635@adacore.com> <43735815.3070805@tausq.org> <20051111001017.GJ1635@adacore.com> <437548AF.5090107@tausq.org> <8f2776cb0511111838m64d478d9s2e04db338fbf7fc8@mail.gmail.com> <4375624D.1070202@tausq.org> <8f2776cb0511112022k746e7909r24be2e964dd45a13@mail.gmail.com> <437571F4.8020508@tausq.org> <20051112060426.GT1635@adacore.com> <20051113181909.GB3599@nevyn.them.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20051113181909.GB3599@nevyn.them.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i X-SW-Source: 2005-11/txt/msg00170.txt.bz2 > If you're going to do this, I recommend using the prologue analysis > framework Jim posted, which hopefully we'll have merged by then. If we > haven't, well, an active user of it will make it easier. There was some discussion about redesigning it a bit at the time. I think it was something to make the analyser use callbacks in the tdep code, as opposed to us calling the appropriate routines in the analyzer. Is this still in the air (or maybe I am just confused)? -- Joel