From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 29507 invoked by alias); 26 Feb 2010 20:50:30 -0000 Received: (qmail 29490 invoked by uid 22791); 26 Feb 2010 20:50:29 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail.codesourcery.com (HELO mail.codesourcery.com) (38.113.113.100) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Fri, 26 Feb 2010 20:50:22 +0000 Received: (qmail 10627 invoked from network); 26 Feb 2010 20:50:20 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO caradoc.them.org) (dan@127.0.0.2) by mail.codesourcery.com with ESMTPA; 26 Feb 2010 20:50:20 -0000 Date: Fri, 26 Feb 2010 20:50:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: David Daney Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org, Joel Brobecker , "Pinski, Andrew" , Ralf Baechle , linux-mips Subject: Re: [PATCH] Make mips-linux signal frame unwinding more robust. Message-ID: <20100226205016.GB2630@caradoc.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: David Daney , gdb-patches@sourceware.org, Joel Brobecker , "Pinski, Andrew" , Ralf Baechle , linux-mips References: <4B82CEC4.2010607@caviumnetworks.com> <20100225174739.GA2851@adacore.com> <4B86C5EB.6090303@caviumnetworks.com> <4B881151.9070300@caviumnetworks.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4B881151.9070300@caviumnetworks.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) 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: 2010-02/txt/msg00658.txt.bz2 On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 10:22:09AM -0800, David Daney wrote: > The current signal frame unwinding code in mips-linux-tdep.c assumes > a constant offset from the signal return trampoline to the signal > frame. The assumption does not hold for all kernels. Specifically > those that have to be compiled with ICACHE_REFILLS_WORKAROUND_WAR > set (SGI O2 for example). In the near future, it is likely that the > assumption will cease to hold universally, as we are attempting to > move the signal return trampoline off the stack entirely. It's funny, I thought I'd already taught GDB about the WAR workaround, but there's no hint of it. Your patch looks good to me. > OK to commit? > > How about on the 7.1 branch? OK both. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery