> 
> Sorry, my analysis wasn't completely correct.  What actually happens
> is an init-order problem during the initialization of the gdbarch
> in initialize_current_architecture.  The problem is that I call
> dwarf2_frame_set_init_reg from within the s390_gdbarch_init routine
> (which I gather is the right place?), and at this point in time,
> the gdbarch_data call in dwarf2_frame_set_init_reg returns NULL
> because the gdbarch hasn't finished initialization yet:
> 
> I've committed the attatched.  It follows the convention described in that revised doco patch I posted:
> http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb-patches/2004-02/msg00381.html
> 
> Andrew 

with patch ...