From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 110794 invoked by alias); 11 Mar 2016 15:44:13 -0000 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 Received: (qmail 110784 invoked by uid 89); 11 Mar 2016 15:44:12 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy=yield, our X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES256-GCM-SHA384 encrypted) ESMTPS; Fri, 11 Mar 2016 15:44:11 +0000 Received: from int-mx13.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx13.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.26]) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 62CF7335E9A; Fri, 11 Mar 2016 15:44:10 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.9.1]) by int-mx13.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id u2BFi8wj028141; Fri, 11 Mar 2016 10:44:09 -0500 Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/8] gdb/s390: Fill gen_return_address hook. To: Andreas Arnez , =?UTF-8?Q?Marcin_Ko=c5=9bcielnicki?= References: <1453637529-26972-5-git-send-email-koriakin@0x04.net> <1454853751-18455-1-git-send-email-koriakin@0x04.net> <56E2AD82.3060101@0x04.net> <56E2B95F.7050701@0x04.net> Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org From: Pedro Alves Message-ID: <56E2E7C8.7050901@redhat.com> Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2016 15:44:00 -0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2016-03/txt/msg00189.txt.bz2 On 03/11/2016 03:31 PM, Andreas Arnez wrote: > So I'm OK with the patch. Please add a small comment stating that this > is a best-can-do approach that usually works near function entry and may > yield wrong results otherwise. I think that should be put in the manual, even. Users will also trip on this, not just our tests. Thanks, Pedro Alves