From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 14313 invoked by alias); 24 Mar 2003 17:04:13 -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 14306 invoked from network); 24 Mar 2003 17:04:12 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO localhost.redhat.com) (207.219.125.105) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 24 Mar 2003 17:04:12 -0000 Received: from redhat.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 26B602B11; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 12:04:06 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3E7F3A85.3000100@redhat.com> Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2003 17:04:00 -0000 From: Andrew Cagney User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; NetBSD macppc; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20030223 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Daniel Jacobowitz Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [patch rfc] PUSH_ARGUMENTS() -> push_dummy_call() References: <3E7E977A.5080302@redhat.com> <20030324141924.GA25455@nevyn.them.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2003-03/txt/msg00472.txt.bz2 > While you're rearranging this code, Think of it as `shuffling deck chairs'. It is still the same Titanic. > I'd like your thoughts on > something. I was working on an old project last week - "catch catch" > and "catch throw". A basic implementation is easy. A more interesting > implementation, however, requires being able to extract the arguments > to __cxa_throw (one of the arguments is the object being thrown, > another is the typeinfo for it). Have a look at objc-lang.c:FETCH_ARGUMENTS(). I suspect it should be called FETCH_POINTER_ARGUMENT(frame, i). > This requires being able to figure out where a function which takes two > pointers expects them to be. __cxa_throw will generally not have any > debug info. This logic already exists in the push argument code. While that method contains the relevant logic, I don't think it is easily accessible. > Is it too much overhead/PITA to restructure it so that we can use that > information? If so I'll probably need to add a new architecture method > to get ths sort of information. It is definitly beyond the scope of these cleanups. The interface is going to be sufficiently different to need a new architecture method anyway. Would a FETCH_POINTER_ARGUMENT() method be sufficient for your immediate needs? Andrew