Re: [patch/rfc] Add a sentinel frame

[Michal Ludvig <mludvig@suse.cz>]

Andrew Cagney wrote:
> Well, to fix this specific bug I think you'd just need to implement:
> 
>     save_dummy_frame_tos()
>     unwind_dummy_id() (see uncommitted patch I posted).
> 
> And ensure that the top-of-stack value saved by save_dummy_frame_tos() 
> matches the id.base value returned by unwind_dummy_id().

I added this:
Index: dummy-frame.c
===================================================================
RCS file: /cvs/src/src/gdb/dummy-frame.c,v
retrieving revision 1.10
diff -u -p -r1.10 dummy-frame.c
--- dummy-frame.c       19 Jan 2003 17:39:16 -0000      1.10
+++ dummy-frame.c       5 Mar 2003 17:30:56 -0000
@@ -246,6 +246,17 @@ generic_save_dummy_frame_tos (CORE_ADDR
    dummy_frame_stack->top = sp;
  }

+struct frame_id
+generic_unwind_dummy_id (struct gdbarch *gdbarch, struct frame_info *frame)
+{
+  static struct frame_id id;
+
+  id.base = dummy_frame_stack->top;
+  id.pc = frame->pc;
+
+  return id;
+}
+
  /* Record the upper/lower bounds on the address of the call dummy.  */

  void

and registered to the target:
set_gdbarch_save_dummy_frame_tos (gdbarch,generic_save_dummy_frame_tos);
set_gdbarch_unwind_dummy_id (gdbarch, generic_unwind_dummy_id);

I don't know if everything works as it should, but at least simple
(gdb) print func(123)
doesn't segfault and surprisingly even returns a result!

Does the above look correct to you?

Michal Ludvig
-- 
* SuSE CR, s.r.o     * mludvig@suse.cz
* (+420) 296.545.373 * http://www.suse.cz