From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 7318 invoked by alias); 20 Feb 2007 15:31:36 -0000 Received: (qmail 7310 invoked by uid 22791); 20 Feb 2007 15:31:36 -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; Tue, 20 Feb 2007 15:31:30 +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 1HJWxj-0007g5-4n; Tue, 20 Feb 2007 10:31:27 -0500 Received: from drow by caradoc.them.org with local (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1HJWxi-000365-OX; Tue, 20 Feb 2007 10:31:26 -0500 Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 15:31:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Cc: Mark Kettenis Subject: Re: [patch RFC] Re: Notes on a frame_unwind_address_in_block problem Message-ID: <20070220153126.GA11580@caradoc.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org, Mark Kettenis References: <20070101200248.GA19073@nevyn.them.org> <200701031137.l03Bb0rT031898@brahms.sibelius.xs4all.nl> <20070103161257.GA14162@nevyn.them.org> <200701032027.l03KRv4h000275@brahms.sibelius.xs4all.nl> <20070103203007.GA23392@nevyn.them.org> <200701032158.l03LwPeq026191@brahms.sibelius.xs4all.nl> <20070103220223.GK17935@nevyn.them.org> <200701032223.l03MN8u0001386@brahms.sibelius.xs4all.nl> <20070103222853.GA26905@nevyn.them.org> <20070220123852.GA10630@caradoc.them.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20070220123852.GA10630@caradoc.them.org> 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/msg00244.txt.bz2 On Tue, Feb 20, 2007 at 07:38:52AM -0500, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > Here we go. It's not too bad, all considered. Hmm, one small additional downside: it sends the *_FRAME constants out into dozens of new files. I was poking at adding a new one, which requires auditing all of the existing uses, which has now gotten much harder. That's not a fatal flaw in this patch, but it does make me wonder if there's a better way I'm not seeing... anyway, I'd rather have some acceptable fix than none. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery