From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 6114 invoked by alias); 22 Mar 2002 10:57:38 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 6100 invoked from network); 22 Mar 2002 10:57:36 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO kerberos.suse.cz) (195.47.106.10) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 22 Mar 2002 10:57:36 -0000 Received: from chimera.suse.cz (chimera.suse.cz [10.20.0.2]) by kerberos.suse.cz (SuSE SMTP server) with ESMTP id CE29859D34A for ; Fri, 22 Mar 2002 11:57:35 +0100 (CET) Received: from suse.cz (leviathan.suse.cz [10.20.1.56]) by chimera.suse.cz (8.11.0/8.11.0/SuSE Linux 8.11.0-0.4) with ESMTP id g2MAvZp31659 for ; Fri, 22 Mar 2002 11:57:35 +0100 X-Authentication-Warning: chimera.suse.cz: Host leviathan.suse.cz [10.20.1.56] claimed to be suse.cz Message-ID: <3C9B0E1F.9080102@suse.cz> Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2002 02:57:00 -0000 From: Michal Ludvig Organization: SuSE CR User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:0.9.9) Gecko/20020310 X-Accept-Language: cs, cz, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [RFA] x86_64_skip_prologue References: <3C923BD9.80403@suse.cz> <1020315184051.ZM27571@localhost.localdomain> <3C9760B6.7040900@suse.cz> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2002-03/txt/msg00416.txt.bz2 Michal Ludvig wrote: > Kevin Buettner wrote: > >>> 3) Now pc points to the first line of the sourcecode of the function >>> (usually opening '{'). If the next line with debuginfo has pc within >>> bounds of this function, we will return this pc instead. >> You might want to take a look at some of the other prologue analyzers. >> In particular, you might want to consider calling find_pc_line() instead >> of accessing the data structures directly. > Most of other *_skip_prologue functions pretend, that prolog is an > always-the-same sequence of instructions, what is not the case on > x86-64. I can't see an approach other than the one I have chosen. > Of course I can use other structures and maybe some macros, but the > concept will remain. Or is there another way? > > Why should I preferably use find_pc_line()? It gives me the same symtab > as find_pc_symtab() does... Anyway I have rewritten the code to use it. Any comments, complains, suggestions, whatever? Can I commit? Michal Ludvig -- * SuSE CR, s.r.o * mludvig@suse.cz * +420 2 9654 5373 * http://www.suse.cz