From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 18353 invoked by alias); 18 Mar 2004 06:11:03 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 18337 invoked from network); 18 Mar 2004 06:10:58 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO monty-python.gnu.org) (199.232.76.173) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 18 Mar 2004 06:10:58 -0000 Received: from [207.232.27.5] (helo=WST0054) by monty-python.gnu.org with asmtp (Exim 4.30) id 1B3qhq-0006uw-MX; Thu, 18 Mar 2004 01:08:38 -0500 Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2004 00:09:00 -0000 Message-Id: From: Eli Zaretskii To: Andrew Cagney CC: carlton@kealia.com,mec.gnu@mindspring.com,gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com In-reply-to: <4058B42C.8010007@gnu.org> (message from Andrew Cagney on Wed, 17 Mar 2004 15:25:16 -0500) Subject: Re: [rfa/doco] PROBLEMS: add regressions since gdb 6.0 Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii References: <20040317015343.3DA244B104@berman.michael-chastain.com> <8296-Wed17Mar2004210500+0200-eliz@elta.co.il> <4058B42C.8010007@gnu.org> X-SW-Source: 2004-03/txt/msg00420.txt.bz2 > Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2004 15:25:16 -0500 > From: Andrew Cagney > > - arches using the old frame stuff are typically in worse shape I don't think we can tell users their target is ``in worse shape'' without being specific. It sounds like FUD, even though I realize it isn't. If we want to tell users their target suffers from problems, we should make the effort of spelling out those problems in terms users can understand and act upon. > - arches using the old frame stuff can't use CFI (i.e., can't use > exploit GCC's frame debug info) > > the second one in particular is of issue to users - it affects GDB's > ability to do decent backtraces (especially through glibc). This is IMHO better than just ``in worse shape'', but it's still not detailed enough. I, for one, don't understand the real meaning of ``decent backtraces''. What does it mean? do I get garbage in some or all frames? does the backtrace stop short of showing be the whole picture? which frames are susceptible and what can I do to alleviate that (compilation options, perhaps)? Etc., etc. Also, are there actually targets that use the old frame stuff _and_ use glibc? (It strikes me that the crazy techniques used by glibc are as guilty for breaking GDB as the oldish targets.) From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 18353 invoked by alias); 18 Mar 2004 06:11:03 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 18337 invoked from network); 18 Mar 2004 06:10:58 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO monty-python.gnu.org) (199.232.76.173) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 18 Mar 2004 06:10:58 -0000 Received: from [207.232.27.5] (helo=WST0054) by monty-python.gnu.org with asmtp (Exim 4.30) id 1B3qhq-0006uw-MX; Thu, 18 Mar 2004 01:08:38 -0500 Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2004 06:11:00 -0000 Message-ID: From: Eli Zaretskii To: Andrew Cagney CC: carlton@kealia.com,mec.gnu@mindspring.com,gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com In-reply-to: <4058B42C.8010007@gnu.org> (message from Andrew Cagney on Wed, 17 Mar 2004 15:25:16 -0500) Subject: Re: [rfa/doco] PROBLEMS: add regressions since gdb 6.0 Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii References: <20040317015343.3DA244B104@berman.michael-chastain.com> <8296-Wed17Mar2004210500+0200-eliz@elta.co.il> <4058B42C.8010007@gnu.org> X-SW-Source: 2004-03.o/txt/msg00420.txt Message-ID: <20040318061100.oPDcUk8gjw9jNToka9BpeuvRPex8fuA3YRrthbkb9zc@z> > Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2004 15:25:16 -0500 > From: Andrew Cagney > > - arches using the old frame stuff are typically in worse shape I don't think we can tell users their target is ``in worse shape'' without being specific. It sounds like FUD, even though I realize it isn't. If we want to tell users their target suffers from problems, we should make the effort of spelling out those problems in terms users can understand and act upon. > - arches using the old frame stuff can't use CFI (i.e., can't use > exploit GCC's frame debug info) > > the second one in particular is of issue to users - it affects GDB's > ability to do decent backtraces (especially through glibc). This is IMHO better than just ``in worse shape'', but it's still not detailed enough. I, for one, don't understand the real meaning of ``decent backtraces''. What does it mean? do I get garbage in some or all frames? does the backtrace stop short of showing be the whole picture? which frames are susceptible and what can I do to alleviate that (compilation options, perhaps)? Etc., etc. Also, are there actually targets that use the old frame stuff _and_ use glibc? (It strikes me that the crazy techniques used by glibc are as guilty for breaking GDB as the oldish targets.)