From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 5095 invoked by alias); 10 Dec 2007 17:37:59 -0000 Received: (qmail 5085 invoked by uid 22791); 10 Dec 2007 17:37:59 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from NaN.false.org (HELO nan.false.org) (208.75.86.248) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Mon, 10 Dec 2007 17:37:52 +0000 Received: from nan.false.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B0E859801F; Mon, 10 Dec 2007 17:37:50 +0000 (GMT) Received: from caradoc.them.org (22.svnf5.xdsl.nauticom.net [209.195.183.55]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 66BB69801D; Mon, 10 Dec 2007 17:37:50 +0000 (GMT) Received: from drow by caradoc.them.org with local (Exim 4.68) (envelope-from ) id 1J1mZh-0007yB-6h; Mon, 10 Dec 2007 12:37:49 -0500 Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2007 18:08:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Pedro Alves Cc: Pierre Muller , gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [RFC] Enhance backtrace for microsoft system DLL calls Message-ID: <20071210173749.GA30618@caradoc.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Pedro Alves , Pierre Muller , gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <000001c83b4a$573b4560$05b1d020$@u-strasbg.fr> <4053daab0712100931yb44d6e4m51ab3072f1406187@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4053daab0712100931yb44d6e4m51ab3072f1406187@mail.gmail.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.15 (2007-04-09) 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: 2007-12/txt/msg00155.txt.bz2 On Mon, Dec 10, 2007 at 05:31:35PM +0000, Pedro Alves wrote: > That's placed there for hot patching, together with 5 bytes of slack before the > function (the idea is to be able to replace that 2 byte op with a jump to > 5 bytes back, and patch the 5 bytes with a jump into anywhere in the > 32-bit address space.) Interesting. > You can put a flag in i386's gdbarch_tdep (look in > i386-tdep.h, and i386-cygwin-tdep.c). I don't think we need to. Hot patching this way may be MS-specific, but a two byte NOP is a two byte NOP no matter where you find it. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery