From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 6920 invoked by alias); 13 Nov 2005 18:28:59 -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 6897 invoked by uid 22791); 13 Nov 2005 18:28:55 -0000 Received: from nevyn.them.org (HELO nevyn.them.org) (66.93.172.17) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.30-dev) with ESMTP; Sun, 13 Nov 2005 18:28:55 +0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 4.54) id 1EbMax-00014G-M5; Sun, 13 Nov 2005 13:28:51 -0500 Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2005 18:45:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Joel Brobecker Cc: Randolph Chung , Jim Blandy , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [hppa] FYI: confusion in unwind descriptor field meaning Message-ID: <20051113182851.GD3599@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Joel Brobecker , Randolph Chung , Jim Blandy , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com References: <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> <20051113182255.GV1635@adacore.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20051113182255.GV1635@adacore.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.8i X-SW-Source: 2005-11/txt/msg00172.txt.bz2 On Sun, Nov 13, 2005 at 10:22:55AM -0800, Joel Brobecker wrote: > > 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)? Maybe? :-) I tend to review things backwards in time; it's going to be a while before I can work my way back to Jim's post again. I need to play around with it before I'll have an opinion. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery, LLC