Re: [patch 2/2] Disable epilogue unwinders on recent GCCs [Re: Regression: Re: [PATCH] Fix some i386 unwinder inconcistencies]

Jan Kratochvil
2011-06-28T20:06:56Z

On Tue, 28 Jun 2011 22:01:57 +0200, Tom Tromey wrote:
> >>>>> "Mark" == Mark Kettenis <mark.kettenis@xs4all.nl> writes:
>
> >> 1441 /* This restriction could be lifted if other unwinders are known to
> >> 1442 compute the frame base in a way compatible with the DWARF
> >> 1443 unwinder. */
> >> 1444 if (! frame_unwinder_is (this_frame, &dwarf2_frame_unwind))
> >> 1445 error (_("can't compute CFA for this frame"));
>
> Mark> I still think, this code should be removed. Tom, since you added that
> Mark> bit, what's your take on that?
[...]
> If that is incorrect, and recent discussion indicates that it is, then I
> think it is fine to drop this check.

I have checked that frame_id.stack comment still says:

Watch out for all the legacy targets that still use the
function pointer register or stack pointer register. They are
wrong.

But I do not have a proof by any target. My opinion if that counts is to keep
the check there as it should not hurt anything now and I find error message
better than a wrong result.

Thanks,
Jan