From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 26433 invoked by alias); 9 Nov 2012 09:59:08 -0000 Received: (qmail 26424 invoked by uid 22791); 9 Nov 2012 09:59:07 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-3.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_THREADED,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,TW_ZM 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; Fri, 09 Nov 2012 09:58:59 +0000 Received: from glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl (kettenis@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl (8.14.5/8.14.3) with ESMTP id qA99wnNP014826; Fri, 9 Nov 2012 10:58:49 +0100 (CET) Received: (from kettenis@localhost) by glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl (8.14.5/8.14.3/Submit) id qA99wlke004638; Fri, 9 Nov 2012 10:58:47 +0100 (CET) Date: Fri, 09 Nov 2012 09:59:00 -0000 Message-Id: <201211090958.qA99wlke004638@glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl> From: Mark Kettenis To: palves@redhat.com CC: brobecker@adacore.com, hjl.tools@gmail.com, gdb-patches@sourceware.org In-reply-to: <509C4B2D.9090809@redhat.com> (message from Pedro Alves on Fri, 09 Nov 2012 00:15:41 +0000) Subject: Re: [7.5] PATCH: PR backtrace/14646 [x32] backtrace doesn't work References: <20121020234741.GA3626@gmail.com> <20121021015636.GD3050@adacore.com> <509C4B2D.9090809@redhat.com> 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: 2012-11/txt/msg00242.txt.bz2 > Comment: DKIM? See http://www.dkim.org > DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; > d=sourceware.org; s=default; x=1353024963; h=Comment: > DomainKey-Signature:Received:Received:Received:Received:Received: > Message-ID:Date:From:User-Agent:MIME-Version:To:CC:Subject: > References:In-Reply-To:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding: > Mailing-List:Precedence:List-Id:List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe: > List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help:Sender:Delivered-To; bh=fQ2iB/y > Eg2HuhqTeKRylTb4WTT0=; b=FLPU875R2QT9MXKu6e+WmhcbYPWpsjXJa3WwEjD > PGW76VcrElXC6LiwtWx3KE9FvDEdwunETMJ/ZSWDL+FZRig8G+girKGiSiCTsBAf > iP+y5uwHXxm/0u3gUuyNZcfirK73wRuBF9zxAsCdc4MwVwqChYfT1/MPGRTzpFU8 > xcBY= > Comment: DomainKeys? See http://antispam.yahoo.com/domainkeys > DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; > s=default; d=sourceware.org; > h=Received:Received:X-SWARE-Spam-Status:X-Spam-Check-By:Received:Received:Received:Message-ID:Date:From:User-Agent:MIME-Version:To:CC:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Mailing-List:Precedence:List-Id:List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe:List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help:Sender:Delivered-To; > b=oRSzNMyrz9j0FxY3zCGoPUERnkq2zu7qDxnXUw/MUST8U3iRpnsY6pYiqqIlwx > ozksGcOAQsWvd6C+3Cap8U5ZbAcVMcmXHPsCzr0ZlAYJlQWwnT0R389gzUJ+zt/o > RtxSw7TaPcbmLG7+iUWWjtPecvKGCRnbc8xoxlADQL8BA=; > X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-7.8 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_RCVD_UNTRUST,KHOP_THREADED,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_W,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS > X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org > Date: Fri, 09 Nov 2012 00:15:41 +0000 > From: Pedro Alves > CC: "H.J. Lu" , GDB > Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm > Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org > X-XS4ALL-DNSBL-Checked: mxdrop108.xs4all.nl checked 209.132.180.131 against DNS blacklists > X-CNFS-Analysis: v=2.0 cv=L5WqtZv8 c=1 sm=0 a=vbYRN7G9ZuyAWxq09MFwFw==:17 > a=33DZqpkaCd4A:10 a=YN_KAqlbJ3EA:10 a=K_0WnIvp2iAA:10 > a=8nJEP1OIZ-IA:10 a=20KFwNOVAAAA:8 a=_q_Hcc1DeB8A:10 > a=tesWsYECI-Fj5byH-2sA:9 a=wPNLvfGTeEIA:10 > a=vbYRN7G9ZuyAWxq09MFwFw==:117 > X-Virus-Scanned: by XS4ALL Virus Scanner > X-XS4ALL-Spam-Score: -0.0 () DKIM_SIGNED, SPF_HELO_PASS, SPF_PASS > X-XS4ALL-Spam: NO > Envelope-To: m.m.kettenis@xs4all.nl > > On 10/21/2012 02:56 AM, Joel Brobecker wrote: > >> This patch backports the fix from trunk to 7.5 branch. Tested on > >> Linux/x86-64 and Linux/x32. OK to install? > > [...] > >> PR backtrace/14646 > >> PR gdb/14647 > >> * i386-tdep.h (gdbarch_tdep): Remove sp_regnum_from_eax and > >> pc_regnum_from_eax. > >> * i386-tdep.c (i386_gdbarch_init): Don't use sp_regnum_from_eax > >> nor pc_regnum_from_eax. > >> * amd64-tdep.c (amd64_x32_init_abi): Don't set sp_regnum_from_eax > >> nor pc_regnum_from_eax. > > > > I'm sorry to say that I am not comfortable at all with this going > > in the 7.5 branch. If Mark is super confident, then OK, but this is > > touching sp/pc handling for all x86 and x86-64 targets. And I don't > > think that the issue this patch is fixing is that critical. > > I'm not Mark, but it looks safe on all x86 and x86-64 targets to me. > Note how tdep->sp_regnum_from_eax and tdep->sp_regnum_from_eax are -1 > by default, and only x32 sets it to something else. Then, the only use > for those fields: > > - if (tdep->sp_regnum_from_eax != -1) > - set_gdbarch_sp_regnum (gdbarch, > - (tdep->eax_regnum > - + tdep->sp_regnum_from_eax)); > - if (tdep->pc_regnum_from_eax != -1) > - set_gdbarch_pc_regnum (gdbarch, > - (tdep->eax_regnum > - + tdep->pc_regnum_from_eax)); > > only had effect on x32. Yeah, it's pretty safe. Must say that I don't see the urgency as x32 is still in its infancy.