From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 28342 invoked by alias); 23 Jun 2005 18:51:08 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 28331 invoked by uid 22791); 23 Jun 2005 18:51:05 -0000 Received: from mail-out4.apple.com (HELO mail-out4.apple.com) (17.254.13.23) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.30-dev) with ESMTP; Thu, 23 Jun 2005 18:51:05 +0000 Received: from mailgate2.apple.com (a17-128-100-204.apple.com [17.128.100.204]) by mail-out4.apple.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j5NIp3Oj011829 for ; Thu, 23 Jun 2005 11:51:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from relay4.apple.com (relay4.apple.com) by mailgate2.apple.com (Content Technologies SMTPRS 4.3.17) with ESMTP id for ; Thu, 23 Jun 2005 11:51:02 -0700 Received: from [17.201.22.21] (moleja.apple.com [17.201.22.21]) by relay4.apple.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j5NIp1EQ029143 for ; Thu, 23 Jun 2005 11:51:01 -0700 (PDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v728) In-Reply-To: <20050623170626.GT2814@calimero.vinschen.de> References: <20050623170626.GT2814@calimero.vinschen.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed Message-Id: <1B26D278-3D1E-4DDB-8DFF-E15F76BA8163@apple.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Jason Molenda Subject: Re: Further cache generating if PC is 0? Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2005 18:51:00 -0000 To: gdb@sources.redhat.com X-SW-Source: 2005-06/txt/msg00211.txt.bz2 Hi Corinna, On Jun 23, 2005, at 10:06 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote: > Ok, so we unwind the stack pointer and what happens at that point is a > pretty hopeless guess. The guess is that the function is frameless > and > has either no local variables or we're still in the prologue. No, if we follow the convention of setting up a frame pointer and saving it on function entry (i.e. we're not debugging -fomit-frame- pointer code in gcc's terminology), we can do better. If the function we're examining is potentially frameless, then we're reduced to guessing. But if the function we're examining MUST have set up a frame, we should assume it did so and continue up the stack. cf http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb-patches/2005-06/msg00060.html Jason