From: Andrew Cagney <ac131313@redhat.com>
To: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@mvista.com>
Cc: Mark Kettenis <kettenis@chello.nl>, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH/i386newframe/RFC] DWARF CFI frame unwinder
Date: Mon, 05 May 2003 14:08:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <3EB67056.4070209@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20030505034242.GA21263@nevyn.them.org>
>>
>> This isn't right. It should return DW_AT_frame_base. However, since
>> dwarf2expr.c doesn't yet use these methods it doesn't [?] really matter.
>> Only affects ``info frame''.
> I don't think it should.
Er ...
> The frame's CFA is the basis for identifying the frame and locating
> saved registers in the CFI. It is always present when you have CFI.
>
> DW_AT_frame_base is the basis for locating saved variables and locals.
> It is generally present when you have DWARF-2 debug info.
You and I went through all this not too long ago. frame-base is for
this high level thingie, frame-unwind is for the low level register
information.
> The two are not necessarily related. I don't remember how we settled
> on providing DW_AT_frame_base. Possibly a debug info auxiliary to the
> function symbol or to the block.
>
>
> By the way, I don't remember something else I believe we've
> discussed... Does each target that wants to use the CFI unwinder have
> to add it in its gdbarch initialization?
At present yes.
Given the amount of upheval required before a target will work with this
code, it doesn't really matter. As I,and now Mark, discovered, it is
something of an all or nothing afair.
Andrew
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2003-05-05 14:08 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2003-05-04 22:07 Mark Kettenis
2003-05-05 3:35 ` Andrew Cagney
2003-05-05 3:42 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2003-05-05 14:08 ` Andrew Cagney [this message]
2003-05-05 14:27 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2003-05-05 14:52 ` Andrew Cagney
2003-05-05 14:59 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2003-05-05 14:11 ` Mark Kettenis
2003-05-05 13:48 ` Mark Kettenis
2003-05-05 14:24 ` Andrew Cagney
2003-05-05 13:52 ` Mark Kettenis
2003-05-05 14:31 ` Andrew Cagney
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=3EB67056.4070209@redhat.com \
--to=ac131313@redhat.com \
--cc=drow@mvista.com \
--cc=gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com \
--cc=kettenis@chello.nl \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox