From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 24463 invoked by alias); 20 May 2006 21:30:59 -0000 Received: (qmail 24455 invoked by uid 22791); 20 May 2006 21:30:59 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from sibelius.xs4all.nl (HELO sibelius.xs4all.nl) (82.92.89.47) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Sat, 20 May 2006 21:30:57 +0000 Received: from elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl (root@elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl [192.168.0.2]) by sibelius.xs4all.nl (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id k4KLT4FT001789; Sat, 20 May 2006 23:29:04 +0200 (CEST) Received: from elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl (kettenis@localhost.sibelius.xs4all.nl [127.0.0.1]) by elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id k4KLT4lm001089; Sat, 20 May 2006 23:29:04 +0200 (CEST) Received: (from kettenis@localhost) by elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl (8.13.6/8.13.6/Submit) id k4KLT4g4014877; Sat, 20 May 2006 23:29:04 +0200 (CEST) Date: Sat, 20 May 2006 22:26:00 -0000 Message-Id: <200605202129.k4KLT4g4014877@elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl> From: Mark Kettenis To: jimb@codesourcery.com CC: pgilliam@us.ibm.com, andrew.stubbs@st.com, brobecker@adacore.com, drow@false.org, gdb-patches@sourceware.org In-reply-to: (message from Jim Blandy on Thu, 18 May 2006 14:17:54 -0700) Subject: Re: [RFC] Move the frame zero PC check earlier References: <20060510180312.GA12606@nevyn.them.org> <200605130946.k4D9kZ2M001331@elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl> <20060513151338.GB3721@nevyn.them.org> <200605131642.k4DGgiqa018273@elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl> <20060516204503.GC13210@nevyn.them.org> <200605162137.k4GLbZiS014187@elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl> <20060516221837.GA15617@nevyn.them.org> <1147815745.3672.163.camel@dufur.beaverton.ibm.com> <20060517155729.GF27234@adacore.com> <446C3EB3.1040606@st.com> <1147969938.3672.168.camel@dufur.beaverton.ibm.com> <200605182004.k4IK49Eh003764@elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl> 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 X-SW-Source: 2006-05/txt/msg00434.txt.bz2 > From: Jim Blandy > Date: Thu, 18 May 2006 14:17:54 -0700 > > Mark Kettenis writes: > >> Nobody has written us saying they want to choose whether GDB treats a > >> zero return address as indicating the end of the stack. Rather, many > >> users have written us complaining that GDB displays extra frames at > >> the end of well-formed, non-corrupt stacks. And over the course of > >> the what seems like dozens of embedded GDB ports I've debugged since > >> 1997, I've come across the same behavior many times myself. > > > > If we're sure that zero return address actually signals the end of the > > stack, then indeed we should not print the extra frame. I'm not > > arguing with that. But that's defenitely > > You've said a few times that you agree GDB should support this > convention where it is followed. Dan's patch accomplishes that, but > in a way you don't like. Do you have a suggestion on how it should be > done? Dan reluctantly suggested a gdbarch flag; what do you think of > that? I actually think that something like that is the way to go. It's closely related to what Dan wrote about in: http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb/2006-05/msg00109.html and I'd like to have a go at implementing option #2 in that mail. Unfortunately I'm leaving for a a four-week trip tomorrow. I won't be able to read my mail for most of the time between now and june 17. Mark