From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 19925 invoked by alias); 16 Feb 2007 12:00:39 -0000 Received: (qmail 19913 invoked by uid 22791); 16 Feb 2007 12:00:39 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from nevyn.them.org (HELO nevyn.them.org) (66.93.172.17) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31.1) with ESMTP; Fri, 16 Feb 2007 12:00:33 +0000 Received: from dsl093-172-095.pit1.dsl.speakeasy.net ([66.93.172.95] helo=caradoc.them.org) by nevyn.them.org with esmtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1HI1lK-0006K9-6A; Fri, 16 Feb 2007 07:00:26 -0500 Received: from drow by caradoc.them.org with local (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1HI1lJ-0007cv-6v; Fri, 16 Feb 2007 07:00:25 -0500 Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 12:00:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Mark Kettenis Cc: fnf@specifix.com, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix PPC scan_prologue for code generated with -mno-update Message-ID: <20070216120024.GA29018@caradoc.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Mark Kettenis , fnf@specifix.com, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com References: <200702151807.06227.fnf@specifix.com> <200702160822.l1G8MYL8026770@brahms.sibelius.xs4all.nl> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200702160822.l1G8MYL8026770@brahms.sibelius.xs4all.nl> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11) X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2007-02/txt/msg00203.txt.bz2 On Fri, Feb 16, 2007 at 09:22:34AM +0100, Mark Kettenis wrote: > Looks reasonable to me. However there's one thing I don't understand. > Presuming you're using DWARF2 debug info, why does improving the > prologue scanner make such a big difference? Because we still haven't hooked up the DWARF2 unwinder for PowerPC; I believe this is because of the (now long-ago fixed) botch on CFI register numbering for lr. The last message I recall is: http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2006-05/msg00341.html I think all that we need is a way to check the recorded LR column and adjust register numbering based on that. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery