From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 27249 invoked by alias); 6 Aug 2004 19:13:47 -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 27242 invoked from network); 6 Aug 2004 19:13:47 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 6 Aug 2004 19:13:47 -0000 Received: from int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (int-mx1.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.254]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i76JDge3024592 for ; Fri, 6 Aug 2004 15:13:42 -0400 Received: from localhost.redhat.com (porkchop.devel.redhat.com [172.16.58.2]) by int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i76JDaa17778; Fri, 6 Aug 2004 15:13:36 -0400 Received: from gnu.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 50F072B9D; Fri, 6 Aug 2004 15:13:31 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <4113D85B.9040702@gnu.org> Date: Fri, 06 Aug 2004 19:13:00 -0000 From: Andrew Cagney User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; NetBSD macppc; en-GB; rv:1.4.1) Gecko/20040801 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Joel Brobecker Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [RFA/RFC] fix problems with unwinder on mips-irix References: <20040723011059.GI20596@gnat.com> <410994BD.5040506@gnu.org> <20040803044358.GA18163@gnat.com> <411039F3.1020102@gnu.org> <20040806183121.GS1192@gnat.com> In-Reply-To: <20040806183121.GS1192@gnat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2004-08/txt/msg00166.txt.bz2 > Andrew, > > >>> If you've the time, please do. >>> >>> Two key things to know: >>> >>> - with three unwinders handling three different cases previously handled >>> by one, there's a lot of dead code paths. For instance, >>> mips32_heuristic_proc_desc is now only called by mips_insn32_frame_cache >>> and hence can be inlined there, making it possible for your problem to >>> be solved more locally. >>> >>> - I'm interested in a brutal overhaul of an unwinder, not a small tweak :-) > > > I think I can find the time for "a small tweak" within the next couple > of weeks, maybe this week-end. But if a "brutal overhaul" is required, > then the bar is too high for me. I just don't have the time. I think that you'll find that a brutal overhaul will in the end take less time than what, at first sight, appears to be just a single simple wafer thin tweak. Here we've got what should be a single simple procedure (mips_insn32_frame_cache) with a very tight interface and an exaustive testsuite, but instead is anything but. Can I suggest spending just an hour attacking it, and then posting the result (just as long as it compiles :-). Andrew