From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 1838 invoked by alias); 1 Sep 2004 14:57:25 -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 1831 invoked from network); 1 Sep 2004 14:57:24 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 1 Sep 2004 14:57:24 -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 i81EvJS2022371 for ; Wed, 1 Sep 2004 10:57:19 -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 i81EvI313434; Wed, 1 Sep 2004 10:57:18 -0400 Received: from gnu.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D7CF28D2; Wed, 1 Sep 2004 10:56:07 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <4135E307.8010409@gnu.org> Date: Wed, 01 Sep 2004 14:57:00 -0000 From: Andrew Cagney User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; NetBSD macppc; en-GB; rv:1.4.1) Gecko/20040831 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> <20040830181829.GC969@gnat.com> <41338063.7020500@gnu.org> In-Reply-To: <41338063.7020500@gnu.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2004-09/txt/msg00009.txt.bz2 [something ate some e-mail during a local mailer upgrade, I'm replying using what I saw on the web] > Reading your last commit to this file, I discovered that you added frame > sniffers, so, if I understand correctly, we can now more or less predict > the circumstances under which find_proc_desc should be called (heuristic > vs non-heuristic). Is that right? Right, but it is stronger than more-or-less :-) mips_insn32_frame_cache need only worry about 32-bit sized instructions and a heuristic prologue analysis. As for inlineing, remember the focus is solely on mips_insn32_frame_cache as that's the one with the immediate bug: > 3. mips_insn32_frame_cache > > In these two cases, the call to find_proc_desc can be reduced to > the case where the heuristics have to be used. You said it can be > inline using something like this: > > if (startaddr == 0) > startaddr = heuristic_proc_start (pc); > > proc_desc = heuristic_proc_desc (startaddr, pc, next_frame, cur_frame); > > I see that linked_proc_desc_table is never used, which explains > why we can get rid of: > > /* Is linked_proc_desc_table really necessary? It only seems to be used > by procedure call dummys. However, the procedures being called ought > to have their own proc_descs, and even if they don't, > heuristic_proc_desc knows how to create them! */ > > struct linked_proc_info *link; > > for (link = linked_proc_desc_table; link; link = link->next) > if (PROC_LOW_ADDR (&link->info) <= pc > && PROC_HIGH_ADDR (&link->info) > pc) > return &link->info; as for the other potential inlines, I'd let them be. The'll follow in their own good time. Andrew