From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 13576 invoked by alias); 6 Aug 2012 15:19:11 -0000 Received: (qmail 13567 invoked by uid 22791); 6 Aug 2012 15:19:11 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-5.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_RCVD_UNTRUST,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_W,SPF_HELO_PASS,TRACKER_ID,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; Mon, 06 Aug 2012 15:18:53 +0000 Received: from int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.24]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q76FITYH024623 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Mon, 6 Aug 2012 11:18:29 -0400 Received: from host2.jankratochvil.net (ovpn-116-27.ams2.redhat.com [10.36.116.27]) by int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q76FIPbt015193 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Mon, 6 Aug 2012 11:18:27 -0400 Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2012 15:19:00 -0000 From: Jan Kratochvil To: Tom Tromey Cc: Joel Brobecker , gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [RFA] DWARF frame unwinder executes one too many rows Message-ID: <20120806151824.GA5438@host2.jankratochvil.net> References: <1343343082-15401-1-git-send-email-brobecker@adacore.com> <20120804123005.GA30962@host2.jankratochvil.net> <87boioktez.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> <20120806150600.GA4772@host2.jankratochvil.net> <873940kqeu.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <873940kqeu.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> 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: 2012-08/txt/msg00178.txt.bz2 On Mon, 06 Aug 2012 17:10:01 +0200, Tom Tromey wrote: > You left out an important part of my message: > > "but looking at the diff it appears I just hoisted the call to > get_frame_pc out of execute_cfa_program." That's true but I do not see any change with it. get_frame_pc was just called in the callers instead, not as the first statement of the callee. 8d35b3995d73e87826263f02da0fd05190d34638 execute_cfa_program (struct dwarf2_fde *fde, const gdb_byte *insn_ptr, - const gdb_byte *insn_end, struct frame_info *this_frame, - struct dwarf2_frame_state *fs) + const gdb_byte *insn_end, struct gdbarch *gdbarch, + CORE_ADDR pc, struct dwarf2_frame_state *fs) { int eh_frame_p = fde->eh_frame_p; - CORE_ADDR pc = get_frame_pc (this_frame); int bytes_read; and execute_cfa_program (fde, fde->cie->initial_instructions, - fde->cie->end, this_frame, fs); + fde->cie->end, gdbarch, get_frame_pc (this_frame), fs); and - execute_cfa_program (fde, fde->instructions, fde->end, this_frame, fs); + execute_cfa_program (fde, fde->instructions, fde->end, gdbarch, + get_frame_pc (this_frame), fs); Moreover without a reproducer I do not feel comfortable to say anything. Jan