From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-patches-return-78595-listarch-gdb-patches=sources.redhat.com@sourceware.org>
Received: (qmail 5693 invoked by alias); 23 Feb 2011 21:44:26 -0000
Received: (qmail 5685 invoked by uid 22791); 23 Feb 2011 21:44:26 -0000
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.0 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; Wed, 23 Feb 2011 21:44:22 +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 p1NLh1AZ025975;	Wed, 23 Feb 2011 22:43:01 +0100 (CET)
Received: (from kettenis@localhost)	by glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl (8.14.3/8.14.3/Submit) id p1NLgx86002352;	Wed, 23 Feb 2011 22:42:59 +0100 (CET)
Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2011 21:52:00 -0000
Message-Id: <201102232142.p1NLgx86002352@glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl>
From: Mark Kettenis <mark.kettenis@xs4all.nl>
To: pedro@codesourcery.com
CC: gdb-patches@sourceware.org
In-reply-to: <201102221337.59184.pedro@codesourcery.com> (message from Pedro	Alves on Tue, 22 Feb 2011 13:37:58 +0000)
Subject: Re: [unavailable regs/locals, 0/11] Introduction
References: <201102221327.22636.pedro@codesourcery.com> <201102221337.59184.pedro@codesourcery.com>
Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gdb-patches.sourceware.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gdb-patches-subscribe@sourceware.org>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gdb-patches@sourceware.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org
X-SW-Source: 2011-02/txt/msg00662.txt.bz2

> From: Pedro Alves <pedro@codesourcery.com>
> Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2011 13:37:58 +0000
> 
> On Tuesday 22 February 2011 13:27:22, Pedro Alves wrote:
> > Tested on x86_64-linux, native and gdbserver.  No
> > regressions, and the new tests pass cleanly.
> 
> ... and it goes without saying:
> 
> I'd appreciate comments and extra eyeballs on all of this.
> Pending objections, I'd like to commit after a reasonable wait.

Pedro, I haven't looked very closely at the code yet, but I have a few
worries.  The GCC debug information tends to underspecify the saved
registers in the unwind info.  The unwinder code deals with
"unspecified"[1] registers by assuming they have the same value as in the
"inner" frame.  How does your new code treat such "unspecified"
registers?

[1] "unspecified" is different from "undefined"