From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 367 invoked by alias); 25 Nov 2010 13:39:20 -0000 Received: (qmail 32753 invoked by uid 22791); 25 Nov 2010 13:39:18 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from sibelius.xs4all.nl (HELO glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl) (83.163.83.176) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Thu, 25 Nov 2010 13:39:13 +0000 Received: from glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl (kettenis@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id oAPDcl36013938; Thu, 25 Nov 2010 14:38:47 +0100 (CET) Received: (from kettenis@localhost) by glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl (8.14.3/8.14.3/Submit) id oAPDck2Y013525; Thu, 25 Nov 2010 14:38:46 +0100 (CET) Date: Thu, 25 Nov 2010 13:39:00 -0000 Message-Id: <201011251338.oAPDck2Y013525@glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl> From: Mark Kettenis To: brobecker@adacore.com CC: pierre.muller@ics-cnrs.unistra.fr, gdb-patches@sourceware.org In-reply-to: <20101124222555.GG2634@adacore.com> (message from Joel Brobecker on Wed, 24 Nov 2010 14:25:55 -0800) Subject: Re: [RFC] Improve amd64 prologue analysis References: <001701cb84ea$6883c170$398b4450$@muller@ics-cnrs.unistra.fr> <20101118172209.GE2634@adacore.com> <004201cb87c1$dab95cd0$902c1670$@muller@ics-cnrs.unistra.fr> <201011242118.oAOLIqZI030918@glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl> <20101124221451.GE2634@adacore.com> <20101124222555.GG2634@adacore.com> 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: 2010-11/txt/msg00427.txt.bz2 > Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2010 14:25:55 -0800 > From: Joel Brobecker > > > > Now I suspect that 64-bit Windows, given its utterly retarded IL32P64 > > > model, doesn't follow that ABI. Therefore my suggestion would be to > > > only use this code on Windows. > > > > On windows, there is some unwinding info that's generated as well. > > We just don't read it, yet. It's something we'd love to do at AdaCore > > eventually, but we're lacking the time at the moment. > > One last bit of information - which I got second hand, but hopefully > accurate. I think that the GCC team is on its way to generating the > unwinding info in that format, rather than the usual DWARF-based > eh_frame/debug_frame. So the Microsoft format should become the default > even for code generated by GCC... So eventually, I think we are going > to need to add an unwinder for that, even for GCC code. I certainly hope you're wrong here, since it would mean a massive ABI break on platforms currently using .eh_frame, and presumably would be x86-specific.