From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 27165 invoked by alias); 28 Jun 2011 20:06:56 -0000 Received: (qmail 27148 invoked by uid 22791); 28 Jun 2011 20:06:52 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,SPF_HELO_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Tue, 28 Jun 2011 20:06:36 +0000 Received: from int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.23]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p5SK6ZSq015144 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK) for ; Tue, 28 Jun 2011 16:06:36 -0400 Received: from host1.jankratochvil.net ([10.3.113.13]) by int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p5SK6XFn004304 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 28 Jun 2011 16:06:35 -0400 Received: from host1.jankratochvil.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by host1.jankratochvil.net (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p5SK6W10007067; Tue, 28 Jun 2011 22:06:32 +0200 Received: (from jkratoch@localhost) by host1.jankratochvil.net (8.14.4/8.14.4/Submit) id p5SK6VJx007053; Tue, 28 Jun 2011 22:06:31 +0200 Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2011 20:06:00 -0000 From: Jan Kratochvil To: Tom Tromey Cc: Mark Kettenis , gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [patch 2/2] Disable epilogue unwinders on recent GCCs [Re: Regression: Re: [PATCH] Fix some i386 unwinder inconcistencies] Message-ID: <20110628200630.GA5160@host1.jankratochvil.net> References: <201106122057.p5CKvUEa030437@glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl> <20110613104911.GA1965@host1.jankratochvil.net> <20110626084140.GB28242@host1.jankratochvil.net> <201106270938.p5R9chh3015295@glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-IsSubscribed: yes 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: 2011-06/txt/msg00424.txt.bz2 On Tue, 28 Jun 2011 22:01:57 +0200, Tom Tromey wrote: > >>>>> "Mark" == Mark Kettenis 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