From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 3874 invoked by alias); 5 Jul 2009 20:46:28 -0000 Received: (qmail 3865 invoked by uid 22791); 5 Jul 2009 20:46:27 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from smtp-outbound-1.vmware.com (HELO smtp-outbound-1.vmware.com) (65.115.85.69) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Sun, 05 Jul 2009 20:46:20 +0000 Received: from jupiter.vmware.com (mailhost5.vmware.com [10.16.68.131]) by smtp-outbound-1.vmware.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 08E1613019; Sun, 5 Jul 2009 13:46:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.20.94.141] (msnyder-server.eng.vmware.com [10.20.94.141]) by jupiter.vmware.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F0431DC45A; Sun, 5 Jul 2009 13:46:15 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4A51105D.5010400@vmware.com> Date: Sun, 05 Jul 2009 20:46:00 -0000 From: Michael Snyder User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.12 (X11/20080411) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Mark Kettenis , msnyder@vmware.com, gdb-patches@sourceware.org, teawater@gmail.com Subject: Re: [RFA] epilogue unwinder for i386 (reverse 1/2) References: <4A4EA0F7.1040004@vmware.com> <4A4EA3B3.9030107@vmware.com> <200907051235.n65CZhDb024857@brahms.sibelius.xs4all.nl> <20090705184849.GA15042@caradoc.them.org> In-Reply-To: <20090705184849.GA15042@caradoc.them.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2009-07/txt/msg00115.txt.bz2 Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > On Sun, Jul 05, 2009 at 02:35:43PM +0200, Mark Kettenis wrote: >> I also think you should add a comment about the specific ordering of >> this unwinder. It has to come before the dwarf2 unwinder because GCC >> doesn't provide proper CFI for the epilogue, right? > > Right - I would like to have a way to suppress this unwinder, maybe > based on the producer string like other recognized dwarf2-frame > quirks, but we can worry about that later. I hope it will be > unnecessary with GCC 4.5. I would like that too -- maybe you can point me at an example? I'm thinking that even if GCC 4.5 fixes the issue, people will continue to use older GCCs for a while.