From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 3280 invoked by alias); 27 Jun 2009 19:56:04 -0000 Received: (qmail 3265 invoked by uid 22791); 27 Jun 2009 19:56:03 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from NaN.false.org (HELO nan.false.org) (208.75.86.248) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Sat, 27 Jun 2009 19:55:56 +0000 Received: from nan.false.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AE5FB10631; Sat, 27 Jun 2009 19:55:53 +0000 (GMT) Received: from caradoc.them.org (209.195.188.212.nauticom.net [209.195.188.212]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 33743104B5; Sat, 27 Jun 2009 19:55:53 +0000 (GMT) Received: from drow by caradoc.them.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1MKe08-0001vQ-Ay; Sat, 27 Jun 2009 15:55:52 -0400 Date: Sat, 27 Jun 2009 19:56:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Pedro Alves Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org, Michael Snyder , Hui Zhu , Marc Khouzam Subject: Re: [RFA] Patch to fix reverse return from subroutine error Message-ID: <20090627195552.GA7049@caradoc.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Pedro Alves , gdb-patches@sourceware.org, Michael Snyder , Hui Zhu , Marc Khouzam References: <4A466BAE.2010305@vmware.com> <200906272049.36692.pedro@codesourcery.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200906272049.36692.pedro@codesourcery.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) 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: 2009-06/txt/msg00771.txt.bz2 On Sat, Jun 27, 2009 at 08:49:35PM +0100, Pedro Alves wrote: > > - || execution_direction == EXEC_REVERSE)) > > + || (execution_direction == EXEC_REVERSE > > + && ecs->event_thread->step_frame_id.stack_addr_p > > + && get_frame_id (get_current_frame ()).stack_addr_p > > + && !gdbarch_inner_than (current_gdbarch, > > + ecs->event_thread->step_frame_id.stack_addr, > > + get_frame_id > > Sorry to pitch in so late, but this doesn't look right to me. > Common code shouldn't be accessing frame id members directly, frame ids > are supposed to be opaque. What is this trying to do? Nor should it be using gdbarch_inner_than this way; Ulrich just got through removing most of those. Stack frames do not necessarily need to be inner than the previous frame. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery