From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 10159 invoked by alias); 13 Jul 2009 19:35:05 -0000 Received: (qmail 10150 invoked by uid 22791); 13 Jul 2009 19:35:04 -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-2.vmware.com (HELO smtp-outbound-2.vmware.com) (65.115.85.73) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Mon, 13 Jul 2009 19:34:55 +0000 Received: from mailhost2.vmware.com (mailhost2.vmware.com [10.16.67.167]) by smtp-outbound-2.vmware.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 99317F00A; Mon, 13 Jul 2009 12:34:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.20.94.141] (msnyder-server.eng.vmware.com [10.20.94.141]) by mailhost2.vmware.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7F2968E815; Mon, 13 Jul 2009 12:34:53 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4A5B8B4B.4020903@vmware.com> Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2009 19:43:00 -0000 From: Michael Snyder User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.12 (X11/20080411) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Michael Snyder , Mark Kettenis , "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> <4A511332.2000607@vmware.com> <4A58D5D7.9070504@vmware.com> <200907121112.n6CBCG1x032181@brahms.sibelius.xs4all.nl> <4A5A209E.5050202@vmware.com> <20090713022618.GA28468@caradoc.them.org> In-Reply-To: <20090713022618.GA28468@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/msg00368.txt.bz2 drow@false.org wrote: > On Sun, Jul 12, 2009 at 10:42:54AM -0700, Michael Snyder wrote: >> Daniel, a heads-up -- this seems to break your test "i386-signal.exp". > > When checked in, it's our test. I don't think it's appropriate to > commit a patch which causes testsuite regressions. You're right, bad judgement call on my part. I'll take it out again until this is resolved. The issue is, the test contains a hand-coded artificial signal frame/handler consisting of a single "ret" instruction. My new epilogue unwinder recognizes the "ret", so it lays claim to the frame before the dwarf unwinder has a chance. It still does a proper backtrace, but of course it doesn't show the tag, it just shows the function name. What do you think? Could we maybe add a nop here or something? I don't understand the details well enough to speculate. Michael