From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 27169 invoked by alias); 26 Nov 2012 20:04:59 -0000 Received: (qmail 26960 invoked by uid 22791); 26 Nov 2012 20:04:55 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-5.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,KHOP_RCVD_TRUST,KHOP_THREADED,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_YE X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail-ye0-f169.google.com (HELO mail-ye0-f169.google.com) (209.85.213.169) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Mon, 26 Nov 2012 20:04:46 +0000 Received: by mail-ye0-f169.google.com with SMTP id j12so1811183yeg.0 for ; Mon, 26 Nov 2012 12:04:46 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.58.137.7 with SMTP id qe7mr21679335veb.23.1353960285803; Mon, 26 Nov 2012 12:04:45 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.58.235.232 with HTTP; Mon, 26 Nov 2012 12:04:45 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <201211261910.qAQJA63I009670@d06av02.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com> References: <201211261910.qAQJA63I009670@d06av02.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com> Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2012 20:04:00 -0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [RFC] Wrong register numbers in .dwarf_frame on Linux/PowerPC From: David Edelsohn To: Ulrich Weigand Cc: geoffk@geoffk.org, jakub@redhat.com, gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, binutils@sourceware.org, gdb-patches@sourceware.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 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: 2012-11/txt/msg00686.txt.bz2 On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 2:10 PM, Ulrich Weigand wrote: > So I'm wondering where to go from here. I guess we could: > > 1. Bring GCC (and gas) behaviour in compliance with the documented ABI > by removing the #undef DBX_REGISTER_NUMBER and changing gas's > md_reg_eh_frame_to_debug_frame to the original implementation from > Jakub's patch. That would make GDB work well on new files, but > there are a large number of binaries out there where we continue > to have the same behaviour as today ... > > 2. Leave GCC and gas as-is and modify GDB to expect GCC numbering in > .dwarf_frame, except for the condition code register. This would > break debugging of files built with GCC 4.0 and 4.1 unless we > want to add a special hack for that. > > 3. Like 2., but remove the condition code hack: simply use identical > numbers in .eh_frame and .dwarf_frame. This would make PowerPC > like other Linux platforms in that respect. > > Thoughts? I vote for (3). Thanks, David