From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 7044 invoked by alias); 5 Jul 2009 18:49:01 -0000 Received: (qmail 7035 invoked by uid 22791); 5 Jul 2009 18:49:01 -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; Sun, 05 Jul 2009 18:48:52 +0000 Received: from nan.false.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 435D3108A5; Sun, 5 Jul 2009 18:48:50 +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 08B68104DF; Sun, 5 Jul 2009 18:48:50 +0000 (GMT) Received: from drow by caradoc.them.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1MNWld-0004En-8a; Sun, 05 Jul 2009 14:48:49 -0400 Date: Sun, 05 Jul 2009 18:49:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Mark Kettenis Cc: msnyder@vmware.com, gdb-patches@sourceware.org, teawater@gmail.com Subject: Re: [RFA] epilogue unwinder for i386 (reverse 1/2) Message-ID: <20090705184849.GA15042@caradoc.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Mark Kettenis , msnyder@vmware.com, gdb-patches@sourceware.org, teawater@gmail.com References: <4A4EA0F7.1040004@vmware.com> <4A4EA3B3.9030107@vmware.com> <200907051235.n65CZhDb024857@brahms.sibelius.xs4all.nl> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200907051235.n65CZhDb024857@brahms.sibelius.xs4all.nl> 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: 2009-07/txt/msg00112.txt.bz2 On Sun, Jul 05, 2009 at 02:35:43PM +0200, Mark Kettenis wrote: > I also think you should add a comment about the specific ordering of > this unwinder. It has to come before the dwarf2 unwinder because GCC > doesn't provide proper CFI for the epilogue, right? Right - I would like to have a way to suppress this unwinder, maybe based on the producer string like other recognized dwarf2-frame quirks, but we can worry about that later. I hope it will be unnecessary with GCC 4.5. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery