From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 13705 invoked by alias); 3 Jul 2003 15:27:34 -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 13698 invoked from network); 3 Jul 2003 15:27:33 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO localhost.redhat.com) (66.30.197.194) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 3 Jul 2003 15:27:33 -0000 Received: from redhat.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 36E682B5F; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 11:27:31 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <3F044B63.8070407@redhat.com> Date: Thu, 03 Jul 2003 15:27:00 -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, 6?] Enable identical frame sanity check References: <3F03241B.1020908@redhat.com> <20030702183600.GB8828@nevyn.them.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2003-07/txt/msg00075.txt.bz2 > On Wed, Jul 02, 2003 at 02:27:39PM -0400, Andrew Cagney wrote: > >> Hello, >> >> This patch enables the `is the prev frame identical to this frame' check >> in get_prev_frame(). I forgot to enable it when I switched the frame ID >> code from using the frame's PC to using the frame's function. Noticed >> this when reviewing Daniel's Arm frame update. >> >> It should probably go straight into the mainline (tested on i386 and d10v). > > > d10v, AVR, and soon ARM all include this check as a silent stop > condition rather than an error... perhaps that has some significance. Ulgh! `prior art' :-) > I know it's hit at least on ARM. It hit the d10v as well, I'd have not otherwize added the test. > I'd have to dumb down the prologue > analyzer if I wanted it not to be, or else figure out where an > inside_entry_func check has gone completely missing in the new frame > code. Just putting it unwind_this_id didn't work (don't remember why > not). Sounds like it should be treated like the stack bottom? The other choice is to treat it as undefined and accept the warning. Andrew