From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 32459 invoked by alias); 22 May 2007 20:25:05 -0000 Received: (qmail 32438 invoked by uid 22791); 22 May 2007 20:25:04 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from viper.snap.net.nz (HELO viper.snap.net.nz) (202.37.101.8) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Tue, 22 May 2007 20:24:59 +0000 Received: from kahikatea.snap.net.nz (147.61.255.123.dynamic.snap.net.nz [123.255.61.147]) by viper.snap.net.nz (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7872D2F524D; Wed, 23 May 2007 08:19:43 +1200 (NZST) Received: by kahikatea.snap.net.nz (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 4B6498F92C; Wed, 23 May 2007 08:19:42 +1200 (NZST) From: Nick Roberts MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <18003.20573.821091.352259@kahikatea.snap.net.nz> Date: Tue, 22 May 2007 20:25:00 -0000 To: Maxim Grigoriev Cc: Jim Blandy , gdb@sourceware.org, Marc Gauthier , Pete MacLiesh , Ross Morley Subject: Re: Understanding GDB frames In-Reply-To: <465341B8.9060208@hq.tensilica.com> References: <46521C04.7040405@hq.tensilica.com> <465341B8.9060208@hq.tensilica.com> X-Mailer: VM 7.19 under Emacs 22.1.50.258 X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2007-05/txt/msg00120.txt.bz2 Maxim Grigoriev writes: > > It's worth pointing out that the 'PC' in a frame ID isn't the current > > PC within the function. It's always the PC of the function's entry > > point, so that stepping within a function doesn't cause the frame ID > > to change. Usually it's a PC value returned by 'frame_func_unwind', > > which takes care of calling get_pc_function_start for you. > > We've been using a function return address instead of > the PC of the function's entry, and it works just fine. But does this explain why xt-gdb didn't detect the variable objects coming back into scope when an i386 gdb did? > The good part of our approach is it allowed to expose some > problems with MI variable objects :-) Actually I think we've discussed this behaviour before and done nothing about it. -- Nick http://www.inet.net.nz/~nickrob