From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 29148 invoked by alias); 9 Aug 2012 09:46:49 -0000 Received: (qmail 29140 invoked by uid 22791); 9 Aug 2012 09:46:48 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_RCVD_UNTRUST,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_W,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; Thu, 09 Aug 2012 09:46:27 +0000 Received: from int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.11]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q799kQ7Y011443 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Thu, 9 Aug 2012 05:46:27 -0400 Received: from host2.jankratochvil.net (ovpn-116-46.ams2.redhat.com [10.36.116.46]) by int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q799kM6U011392 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Thu, 9 Aug 2012 05:46:25 -0400 Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2012 09:46:00 -0000 From: Jan Kratochvil To: Mark Kettenis Cc: tromey@redhat.com, gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: RFC: one approach to fixing PR 14100 Message-ID: <20120809094621.GA24432@host2.jankratochvil.net> References: <87r4rpqnng.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> <877gtgneto.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> <20120803210203.GA21083@host2.jankratochvil.net> <87k3xfl8oj.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> <87vcgwjavg.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> <201208090942.q799gSti019924@glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <201208090942.q799gSti019924@glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl> 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/msg00288.txt.bz2 On Thu, 09 Aug 2012 11:42:28 +0200, Mark Kettenis wrote: > Sorry, but I really think you're working around a problem in the > tailcall sniffer here. The tailcall sniffer seems to violate several > of the design principles of the frame unwinder framework. It should > be fixed instead. Could you be more specific? The tailcall sniffer is unusual that it needs to unwind frame (PC) X+1 from frame X and then insert arbitrary number of frames in between. So it needs to do "preliminary unwind" first. I have tried various ways while coding it and I found the current implementation to fit most the GDB codebase. Thanks, Jan