From: Alexandre Oliva <aoliva@redhat.com>
To: Mark Kettenis <mark.kettenis@xs4all.nl>
Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
Subject: Re: Support Dwarf3 DW_CFA_val_* expressions
Date: Sat, 04 Mar 2006 14:43:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <orek1is9js.fsf@free.oliva.athome.lsd.ic.unicamp.br> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <200603041017.k24AHjh7024812@elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl> (Mark Kettenis's message of "Sat, 4 Mar 2006 11:17:45 +0100 (CET)")
On Mar 4, 2006, Mark Kettenis <mark.kettenis@xs4all.nl> wrote:
> Thanks, the code looks fine.
Is this to be read as an ok to install? (Sorry, I've been just a
lurker here in the past and I'm not entirely familiar with the rules
about who can approve what, so I thought I'd ask instead of ASSuming
:-)
> It's also good to have a few testcases,
> but I don't completely understand the testcases :(
You're not alone in that feeling, I assure you :-)
> You seem to mess
> with a lot of GCC internals in them. Is the force_unwind() stuff
> really necessary?
Not for GDB, no. We don't even reach that point. I thought we'd be
better off keeping the testcase in sync with GCC, so all I did was to
add the initial comment. The execution within GDB doesn't ever reach
the point of run-time-wise unwinding the stack. GDB does something
similar by unwinding the stack to get a backtrace at the point from
which the GCC unwinder would be called.
> The tests are only enabled on Linux. Is there a
> reason why they won't work on other i386 and amd64 systems that use a
> recent enough GCC?
I have no idea, I suppose someone with easy access to them could test
them and let me know :-)
At some point I had only the architectures listed in the .exp file,
but then I thought that some of them might not even use Dwarf2+ debug
info, and decided I'd go with only what I could test myself.
> And what would be the minimum version of GCC
> needed to run these tests?
To actually run them successfully to completion, without the debugger
interaction, you'd need some upcoming version of GCC, perhaps even
with patches yet to be checked in. To compile it and run it up to the
point we need in the GDB test, I'm pretty sure even GCC 2.95 would do;
perhaps something even older than that.
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
Secretary for FSF Latin America http://www.fsfla.org/
Red Hat Compiler Engineer aoliva@{redhat.com, gcc.gnu.org}
Free Software Evangelist oliva@{lsd.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org}
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2006-03-04 12:01 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2006-03-03 17:54 Alexandre Oliva
2006-03-04 12:01 ` Mark Kettenis
2006-03-04 14:43 ` Alexandre Oliva [this message]
2006-03-04 15:07 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2006-03-07 14:25 ` Alexandre Oliva
2006-03-07 15:01 ` Mark Kettenis
2006-03-07 19:55 ` Alexandre Oliva
2006-03-12 18:15 ` Mark Kettenis
2006-05-28 22:22 ` Alexandre Oliva
2006-03-13 2:25 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2006-03-13 6:23 ` Alexandre Oliva
2006-03-24 23:08 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=orek1is9js.fsf@free.oliva.athome.lsd.ic.unicamp.br \
--to=aoliva@redhat.com \
--cc=gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com \
--cc=mark.kettenis@xs4all.nl \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox