From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 5297 invoked by alias); 18 May 2006 21:17:58 -0000 Received: (qmail 5287 invoked by uid 22791); 18 May 2006 21:17:58 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from intranet.codesourcery.com (HELO mail.codesourcery.com) (65.74.133.6) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Thu, 18 May 2006 21:17:56 +0000 Received: (qmail 29679 invoked from network); 18 May 2006 21:17:54 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO localhost) (jimb@127.0.0.2) by mail.codesourcery.com with ESMTPA; 18 May 2006 21:17:54 -0000 To: Mark Kettenis Cc: pgilliam@us.ibm.com, andrew.stubbs@st.com, brobecker@adacore.com, drow@false.org, gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [RFC] Move the frame zero PC check earlier References: <20060510180312.GA12606@nevyn.them.org> <200605130946.k4D9kZ2M001331@elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl> <20060513151338.GB3721@nevyn.them.org> <200605131642.k4DGgiqa018273@elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl> <20060516204503.GC13210@nevyn.them.org> <200605162137.k4GLbZiS014187@elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl> <20060516221837.GA15617@nevyn.them.org> <1147815745.3672.163.camel@dufur.beaverton.ibm.com> <20060517155729.GF27234@adacore.com> <446C3EB3.1040606@st.com> <1147969938.3672.168.camel@dufur.beaverton.ibm.com> <200605182004.k4IK49Eh003764@elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl> From: Jim Blandy Date: Thu, 18 May 2006 23:31:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <200605182004.k4IK49Eh003764@elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl> (Mark Kettenis's message of "Thu, 18 May 2006 22:04:09 +0200 (CEST)") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.0.50 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2006-05/txt/msg00405.txt.bz2 Mark Kettenis writes: >> Nobody has written us saying they want to choose whether GDB treats a >> zero return address as indicating the end of the stack. Rather, many >> users have written us complaining that GDB displays extra frames at >> the end of well-formed, non-corrupt stacks. And over the course of >> the what seems like dozens of embedded GDB ports I've debugged since >> 1997, I've come across the same behavior many times myself. > > If we're sure that zero return address actually signals the end of the > stack, then indeed we should not print the extra frame. I'm not > arguing with that. But that's defenitely You've said a few times that you agree GDB should support this convention where it is followed. Dan's patch accomplishes that, but in a way you don't like. Do you have a suggestion on how it should be done? Dan reluctantly suggested a gdbarch flag; what do you think of that?