From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 9328 invoked by alias); 7 Jul 2003 15:32:59 -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 9320 invoked from network); 7 Jul 2003 15:32:58 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO localhost.redhat.com) (66.30.197.194) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 7 Jul 2003 15:32:58 -0000 Received: from redhat.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AD7042B5F; Mon, 7 Jul 2003 11:32:53 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <3F0992A5.6090601@redhat.com> Date: Mon, 07 Jul 2003 15:32:00 -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: Andrew Cagney Cc: Daniel Jacobowitz , 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> <3F044B63.8070407@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2003-07/txt/msg00126.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. Hmm, I think this is all really a GDB (or testsuite?) bug in asm-source. The backtrace should have stopped at main but instead (at least for the d10v) it kept going. If someone tells GDB to backtrace past main then well, I think, all bets should be off. Andrew