From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-patches-return-22205-listarch-gdb-patches=sources.redhat.com@sources.redhat.com>
Received: (qmail 11926 invoked by alias); 3 Feb 2003 15:58:21 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gdb-patches-subscribe@sources.redhat.com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com
Received: (qmail 11909 invoked from network); 3 Feb 2003 15:58:20 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO localhost.redhat.com) (172.16.49.200)
  by 172.16.49.205 with SMTP; 3 Feb 2003 15:58:20 -0000
Received: from redhat.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 8C0763CB4; Mon,  3 Feb 2003 10:58:12 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <3E3E9194.9080706@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 03 Feb 2003 15:58:00 -0000
From: Andrew Cagney <ac131313@redhat.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; NetBSD macppc; en-US; rv:1.0.1) Gecko/20021211
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@mvista.com>
Cc: Michal Ludvig <mludvig@suse.cz>,
	GDB Patches <gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [ping] Dwarf2 debug info
References: <3E3E8A2E.6070906@suse.cz> <20030203153123.GA13559@nevyn.them.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-SW-Source: 2003-02/txt/msg00063.txt.bz2

> On Mon, Feb 03, 2003 at 04:26:38PM +0100, Michal Ludvig wrote:
> 
>> Hi,
>> what's the final resolution on this message and it's long thread?
>> 
>> http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb-patches/2002-12/msg00449.html
>> 
>> (actually I'd commit the reworked version if approved
>> http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb-patches/2002-12/msg00479.html )
>> 
>> I'm using this patch since december and am not seeing any problems.
>> 
>> Andrew? Daniel? Can I finally commit it?
> 
> 
> No; I think the consensus was that it needs to be hooked in as a new
> frame type, as I discussed with Andrew.

Correct.

 >  I'll come back to this at some
> point; I'm wrapped up in location expressions right now.

(I suspect you're already committed to doing too much :-)

Michael, there are several things to do here.

- re-arange dwarf2cfi so that it is paramaterized with debug info

- implement cfi-frame.[hc] (like sentinel-frame.[hc] et.al.)

- implement a fake frame unwinder using the restructured dwarf2cfi.c

- get the x86-64 and the x86 using the new frame unwind code

Andrew