From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 23262 invoked by alias); 9 Sep 2003 17:24:58 -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 23247 invoked from network); 9 Sep 2003 17:24:57 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO zenia.home) (12.223.225.216) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 9 Sep 2003 17:24:57 -0000 Received: by zenia.home (Postfix, from userid 5433) id 54733204FF; Tue, 9 Sep 2003 12:23:27 -0500 (EST) To: Daniel Jacobowitz Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [rfa/6.0] Better handle unspecified CFI values References: <3F593115.4030407@redhat.com> <20030906213351.GA1101@nevyn.them.org> <3F5D1AE7.7020306@redhat.com> <20030909033053.GA8904@nevyn.them.org> From: Jim Blandy Date: Tue, 09 Sep 2003 17:24:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <20030909033053.GA8904@nevyn.them.org> Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.3 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-SW-Source: 2003-09/txt/msg00162.txt.bz2 Daniel Jacobowitz writes: > Yes - normally. On S/390, stdcall, et cetera (anywhere where the hack > would be wrong) it gets even worse. We can only compute expressions > describing a memory location where the register is saved, not computed > values. For stack pointers (and maybe frame pointers on some > architectures?) this isn't good enough. Not to pursue unimportant tangents, but why would the hack be wrong on the S/390? Its frames are normally FP-free, but aside from that, what's unusual about it?