From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 15450 invoked by alias); 11 Nov 2005 11:56:04 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org Received: (qmail 15151 invoked by uid 22791); 11 Nov 2005 11:56:01 -0000 Received: from lon-del-04.spheriq.net (HELO lon-del-04.spheriq.net) (195.46.50.101) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.30-dev) with ESMTP; Fri, 11 Nov 2005 11:56:01 +0000 Received: from lon-out-03.spheriq.net ([195.46.50.131]) by lon-del-04.spheriq.net with ESMTP id jABBtxiH007681 for ; Fri, 11 Nov 2005 11:55:59 GMT Received: from lon-cus-01.spheriq.net (lon-cus-01.spheriq.net [195.46.50.37]) by lon-out-03.spheriq.net with ESMTP id jABBtval022436 for ; Fri, 11 Nov 2005 11:55:58 GMT Received: from beta.dmz-eu.st.com (beta.dmz-eu.st.com [164.129.1.35]) by lon-cus-01.spheriq.net with ESMTP id jABBtusJ003004 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=OK); Fri, 11 Nov 2005 11:55:57 GMT Received: from zeta.dmz-eu.st.com (ns2.st.com [164.129.230.9]) by beta.dmz-eu.st.com (STMicroelectronics) with ESMTP id D347FDA49; Fri, 11 Nov 2005 11:55:55 +0000 (GMT) Received: by zeta.dmz-eu.st.com (STMicroelectronics, from userid 60012) id 3F7774745C; Fri, 11 Nov 2005 11:58:52 +0000 (GMT) Received: from zeta.dmz-eu.st.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by zeta.dmz-eu.st.com (STMicroelectronics) with ESMTP id F3D0B75999; Fri, 11 Nov 2005 11:58:51 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail1.bri.st.com (mail1.bri.st.com [164.129.8.218]) by zeta.dmz-eu.st.com (STMicroelectronics) with ESMTP id 6E369474B0; Fri, 11 Nov 2005 11:58:51 +0000 (GMT) Received: from [164.129.15.13] (terrorhawk.bri.st.com [164.129.15.13]) by mail1.bri.st.com (MOS 3.5.8-GR) with ESMTP id CGZ03735 (AUTH "andrew stubbs"); Fri, 11 Nov 2005 11:55:54 GMT Message-ID: <4374863D.60601@st.com> Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2005 20:09:00 -0000 From: Andrew STUBBS User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.2 (Windows/20050317) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Daniel Jacobowitz Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [SH][PATCH] Disable ABI frame sniffer References: <43722DEF.8060300@st.com> <20051110013122.GB11334@nevyn.them.org> <437321EE.7010904@st.com> <20051110133905.GB21420@nevyn.them.org> <43735A1D.6010406@st.com> <20051110231336.GB3195@nevyn.them.org> In-Reply-To: <20051110231336.GB3195@nevyn.them.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-O-Spoofed: Not Scanned X-O-General-Status: No X-O-Spam1-Status: Not Scanned X-O-Spam2-Status: Not Scanned X-O-URL-Status: Not Scanned X-O-Virus1-Status: No X-O-Virus2-Status: Not Scanned X-O-Virus3-Status: No X-O-Virus4-Status: No X-O-Virus5-Status: Not Scanned X-O-Image-Status: Not Scanned X-O-Attach-Status: Not Scanned X-SpheriQ-Ver: 4.1.07 X-SW-Source: 2005-11/txt/msg00146.txt.bz2 Hi Daniel, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > There are assembly routines in newlib too, you know. I didn't say > anything about glibc. You may encounter linker generated branch > trampolines in some cases, too. I know you didn't say anything about glibc. I was just citing that as an example of a complex library. Newlib does have assembly routines, but very few, on SH anyway. The only ones I know of off hand are memset and friends. There's the crt stuff, of course, but you have to go 'pastmain' to find that. > In case you missed my sarcasm here, I was responding to "dependent on > the values in registers and memory". Of course it is! I didn't miss it as such, but seriously, most of what GDB does doesn't involve following (possibly phantom) trails of pointers through target memory. This about the least certain data that GDB presents, simply because the uncertainties mount up. > See Mark's reply for more on this. Had you said what your problem > really was, we could have saved a couple of back-and-forth exchanges; > I'm extremely familiar with the problem of finding clean ways to > terminate the backtrace. OK, I'm listening. If we can get it so that both the 0xdeadbeef frames (one which comes from the dwarf unwinder - see my posting yesterday) are ignored then that would be a bonus. >>BTW, were you (and others) waiting for them to do something about the SH >>specific patches I have been sending? I ask because I have had no >>response on a few. > > > I review patches as fast as I am able. I am more likely to review > patches to code I know something about, which does not include the SH > backend. > I can understand that. I'm sure you have your own real work to be getting on with too. However, I have a selection of SH specific patches, submitted and queued, so this situation worries me a little. About half of sh-tdep.c is a total mystery to me - mostly the bits that have never caused me any trouble. My patches to that area are all quite simple, so it probably won't be too bad. Thanks for all your time Andrew Stubbs