From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 25598 invoked by alias); 28 Jun 2011 20:02:16 -0000 Received: (qmail 25589 invoked by uid 22791); 28 Jun 2011 20:02:16 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,SPF_HELO_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD 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, 28 Jun 2011 20:01:59 +0000 Received: from int-mx12.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx12.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.25]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p5SK1xxT005685 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Tue, 28 Jun 2011 16:01:59 -0400 Received: from ns3.rdu.redhat.com (ns3.rdu.redhat.com [10.11.255.199]) by int-mx12.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p5SK1xHX000546; Tue, 28 Jun 2011 16:01:59 -0400 Received: from barimba (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 p5SK1vqe026753; Tue, 28 Jun 2011 16:01:58 -0400 From: Tom Tromey To: Mark Kettenis Cc: jan.kratochvil@redhat.com, gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [patch 2/2] Disable epilogue unwinders on recent GCCs [Re: Regression: Re: [PATCH] Fix some i386 unwinder inconcistencies] References: <201106122057.p5CKvUEa030437@glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl> <20110613104911.GA1965@host1.jankratochvil.net> <20110626084140.GB28242@host1.jankratochvil.net> <201106270938.p5R9chh3015295@glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl> Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2011 20:02:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <201106270938.p5R9chh3015295@glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl> (Mark Kettenis's message of "Mon, 27 Jun 2011 11:38:43 +0200 (CEST)") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.0.50 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain 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: 2011-06/txt/msg00423.txt.bz2 >>>>> "Mark" == Mark Kettenis writes: >> 1441 /* This restriction could be lifted if other unwinders are known to >> 1442 compute the frame base in a way compatible with the DWARF >> 1443 unwinder. */ >> 1444 if (! frame_unwinder_is (this_frame, &dwarf2_frame_unwind)) >> 1445 error (_("can't compute CFA for this frame")); Mark> I still think, this code should be removed. Tom, since you added that Mark> bit, what's your take on that? When I wrote that I was under the impression that the different unwinders computed the CFA differently. If that is incorrect, and recent discussion indicates that it is, then I think it is fine to drop this check. Actually, the whole purpose of frame_unwinder_is and dwarf2_frame_cfa is just to do this check. All that stuff could be removed. Tom