From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-patches-return-65413-listarch-gdb-patches=sources.redhat.com@sourceware.org>
Received: (qmail 2262 invoked by alias); 15 Jul 2009 09:21:45 -0000
Received: (qmail 2241 invoked by uid 22791); 15 Jul 2009 09:21:42 -0000
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.4 required=5.0 	tests=AWL,BAYES_00,J_CHICKENPOX_55,SARE_MSGID_LONG40,SPF_PASS
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from wf-out-1314.google.com (HELO wf-out-1314.google.com) (209.85.200.168)     by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Wed, 15 Jul 2009 09:21:34 +0000
Received: by wf-out-1314.google.com with SMTP id 23so1245778wfg.24         for <gdb-patches@sourceware.org>; Wed, 15 Jul 2009 02:21:32 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.143.14.6 with SMTP id r6mr1785942wfi.24.1247649692059; Wed, 15  	Jul 2009 02:21:32 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <4A5CE59A.8080208@vmware.com>
References: <daef60380907061940l6625d38p6b1a03a9527565ab@mail.gmail.com>  	<4A5CE59A.8080208@vmware.com>
From: Hui Zhu <teawater@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2009 16:52:00 -0000
Message-ID: <daef60380907150221n25c4364l7f257a24601f7413@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [RFA/RFC Prec] Add Linux AMD64 process record support second  	version, (AMD64 Linux system call support) 3/3
To: Michael Snyder <msnyder@vmware.com>
Cc: gdb-patches ml <gdb-patches@sourceware.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-IsSubscribed: yes
Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gdb-patches.sourceware.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gdb-patches-subscribe@sourceware.org>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gdb-patches@sourceware.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org
X-SW-Source: 2009-07/txt/msg00392.txt.bz2

On Wed, Jul 15, 2009 at 04:07, Michael Snyder<msnyder@vmware.com> wrote:
> Hui,
>
> It looks like amd64-tdep.c is going to need an epilogue unwinder,
> similar to the one in i386-tdep.c. =A0Can you add one, maybe using
> the 386 one as a model?
>
> I haven't checked in the infrun change that makes use of it,
> but when I do, this will break.
>

OK.  I will.


And about infrun code, without the arch support.  It will break,right?

What about add a check for "frame_unwind_caller_id" in infrun?  If it
got something wrong or arch don't support it.  Use the way in
http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2009-07/msg00182.html to handle
it.

Then we will not worry about the arch doesn't have unwinder.

What do you think about it?


Thanks,
Hui