From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 23121 invoked by alias); 13 Sep 2002 20:00:45 -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 23106 invoked from network); 13 Sep 2002 20:00:43 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO localhost.redhat.com) (216.138.202.10) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 13 Sep 2002 20:00:43 -0000 Received: from ges.redhat.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 30AAC3C98; Fri, 13 Sep 2002 16:00:41 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <3D8243E9.5040500@ges.redhat.com> Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2002 13:00:00 -0000 From: Andrew Cagney User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; NetBSD macppc; en-US; rv:1.0.0) Gecko/20020824 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Kevin Buettner Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [patch/mips] Use unwind in mips_get_saved_register References: <3D822687.9080300@ges.redhat.com> <1020913182011.ZM18899@localhost.localdomain> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2002-09/txt/msg00265.txt.bz2 > On Sep 13, 1:55pm, Andrew Cagney wrote: > > >> The attached is ``two steps forward, one step back'' patch. >> >> It modifies mips_get_saved_register() so that it uses the new unwind >> code. The new unwind code automatically handles the fetching of >> registers in dummy-frames. Unfortunatly, the change doesn't fix the >> problem of the MIPS fiddling memory register reads dependant on the >> current ABI. > > > I posted a similar patch last month: > > http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb-patches/2002-08/msg00198.html > > At that time you rejected it for the reasons given in: > > http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb-patches/2002-08/msg00214.html > http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb-patches/2002-08/msg00235.html > > Please explain what has changed between then and now which makes it > acceptable to now use frame_register_unwind()? I know. See: http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb-patches/2002-09/msg00223.html At the time of your original patch, the only motivation was the elimination of frame_register_unwind() --- on its own, I don't see any benefit. Since then, as part of converting the MIPS to generic dummy frames (a needed and huge forward step), I've found that I need to use the generic unwind code to at least keep things working. You'll note that the code includes some very blunt comments that make it clear where any bugs are. enjoy, Andrew