From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-patches-return-81749-listarch-gdb-patches=sources.redhat.com@sourceware.org>
Received: (qmail 15263 invoked by alias); 23 Jun 2011 13:14:47 -0000
Received: (qmail 15254 invoked by uid 22791); 23 Jun 2011 13:14:46 -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; Thu, 23 Jun 2011 13:14:31 +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 p5NDE7hi025033;	Thu, 23 Jun 2011 15:14:07 +0200 (CEST)
Received: (from kettenis@localhost)	by glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl (8.14.3/8.14.3/Submit) id p5NDE37t015068;	Thu, 23 Jun 2011 15:14:03 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2011 13:14:00 -0000
Message-Id: <201106231314.p5NDE37t015068@glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl>
From: Mark Kettenis <mark.kettenis@xs4all.nl>
To: ebotcazou@adacore.com
CC: gdb-patches@sourceware.org
In-reply-to: <201106212008.10987.ebotcazou@adacore.com> (message from Eric	Botcazou on Tue, 21 Jun 2011 20:08:10 +0200)
Subject: Re: [patch] Add support for single register window model on SPARC
References: <201106161536.09111.ebotcazou@adacore.com> <201106211212.p5LCC5Go017378@glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl> <201106212008.10987.ebotcazou@adacore.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: 2011-06/txt/msg00347.txt.bz2

> From: Eric Botcazou <ebotcazou@adacore.com>
> Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2011 20:08:10 +0200
> 
> > Hmm, if full CFI for the explicit register saving code is emitted, I'd
> > expect backtraces to work.
> 
> Exceptions work well so the CFIs are very likely correct, at least
> in eh_frame.  A quick look didn't reveal differences between
> eh_frame and debug_frame so this is a little strange then.  Is GDB
> supposed to fall back to "manual" unwinding only when the DWARF
> unwinder gives up?

Typically, yes, but because of:

  /* FIXME: kettenis/20050423: Don't enable the unwinder until the
     StackGhost issues have been resolved.  */

we only install the DWARF unwinder for Linux, and I guess you tested
on some other platform.

> > StackGhost again.  Better leave this alone as well.
> 
> Yes, there is a bit of code duplication in these files. ;-)

Somewhat difficult to avoid though.

> Revised patch attached, will retest if approved.

No regression on OpenBSD/sparc64, so all fine with me.