From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 31274 invoked by alias); 14 Dec 2010 07:05:54 -0000 Received: (qmail 31264 invoked by uid 22791); 14 Dec 2010 07:05:53 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from rock.gnat.com (HELO rock.gnat.com) (205.232.38.15) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Tue, 14 Dec 2010 07:05:49 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 183C32BAB05; Tue, 14 Dec 2010 02:05:48 -0500 (EST) Received: from rock.gnat.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (rock.gnat.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id FZ2DVeqhgQge; Tue, 14 Dec 2010 02:05:48 -0500 (EST) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7C2DA2BAAE4; Tue, 14 Dec 2010 02:05:47 -0500 (EST) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 6EF34145B58; Tue, 14 Dec 2010 08:05:35 +0100 (CET) Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2010 07:05:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: kettenis@gnu.org Cc: Pierre Muller , gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [RFC] Improve amd64 prologue analysis Message-ID: <20101214070535.GO2596@adacore.com> References: <001701cb84ea$6883c170$398b4450$@muller@ics-cnrs.unistra.fr> <20101118172209.GE2634@adacore.com> <004201cb87c1$dab95cd0$902c1670$@muller@ics-cnrs.unistra.fr> <20101119172011.GI2634@adacore.com> <000901cb883c$067a8860$136f9920$@muller@ics-cnrs.unistra.fr> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <000901cb883c$067a8860$136f9920$@muller@ics-cnrs.unistra.fr> 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: 2010-12/txt/msg00212.txt.bz2 Hi Mark, > I think that your code does indeed catch some > instructions that are not covered by my patch, > especially in Windows DLL. If Pierre were to submit a patch that merges both our changes, do you think it would have a chance of being included? The alternative is to start working on a pdata/xdata unwinder, but I don't see myself having the time to look into that anytime soon (not within the next 12 months). You mentioned that, if we have prologue instruction parsers, they should be Windows-specific. But I would think that this extra level of precaution is unnecessary, since the prologue analyzer should almost never be used on the other platforms where we have the DWARF frame info. Is that wishful thinking? -- Joel