From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 15401 invoked by alias); 1 Sep 2009 23:51:38 -0000 Received: (qmail 15392 invoked by uid 22791); 1 Sep 2009 23:51:37 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Tue, 01 Sep 2009 23:51:26 +0000 Received: from int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.12]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n81NpOPH010923 for ; Tue, 1 Sep 2009 19:51:24 -0400 Received: from ns3.rdu.redhat.com (ns3.rdu.redhat.com [10.11.255.199]) by int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n81NpOZ1014715; Tue, 1 Sep 2009 19:51:24 -0400 Received: from opsy.redhat.com (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.9.1]) by ns3.rdu.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n81NpN2E012825; Tue, 1 Sep 2009 19:51:23 -0400 Received: by opsy.redhat.com (Postfix, from userid 500) id CE8C6378211; Tue, 1 Sep 2009 17:51:22 -0600 (MDT) From: Tom Tromey To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: RFC: DW_OP_call_frame_cfa, again References: <20090901225003.GA28876@caradoc.them.org> Reply-To: Tom Tromey Date: Tue, 01 Sep 2009 23:51:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <20090901225003.GA28876@caradoc.them.org> (Daniel Jacobowitz's message of "Tue, 1 Sep 2009 18:50:03 -0400") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.1 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii 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: 2009-09/txt/msg00046.txt.bz2 >>>>> "Daniel" == Daniel Jacobowitz writes: Daniel> Am I correct that this works only if all unwinders for this Daniel> architecture use the same CFA notion that DWARF-2 would? If so - Daniel> probably already a requirement - it deserves a comment. It actually just checks, and if the frame was not unwound using the DWARF unwinder, it gives an error. So, if the architecture has multiple unwinders, and a non-DWARF one makes the frame, then you can't print locals there. We could expand this check if other unwinders compute "compatible" frame bases somehow. Daniel> With GCC 4.5 the DWARF unwinder ought to work fine for epilogues on Daniel> specific platforms, not all. Thanks. Tom