From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 9166 invoked by alias); 2 Mar 2003 17:52:12 -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 9103 invoked from network); 2 Mar 2003 17:52:10 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO walton.kettenis.dyndns.org) (62.163.169.212) by 172.16.49.205 with SMTP; 2 Mar 2003 17:52:10 -0000 Received: from elgar.kettenis.dyndns.org (elgar.kettenis.dyndns.org [192.168.0.2]) by walton.kettenis.dyndns.org (8.12.6/8.12.5) with ESMTP id h22HVwUb002041; Sun, 2 Mar 2003 18:31:58 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from kettenis@elgar.kettenis.dyndns.org) Received: from elgar.kettenis.dyndns.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by elgar.kettenis.dyndns.org (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id h22HVwFV019553; Sun, 2 Mar 2003 18:31:58 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from kettenis@elgar.kettenis.dyndns.org) Received: (from kettenis@localhost) by elgar.kettenis.dyndns.org (8.12.6/8.12.6/Submit) id h22HVsEl019548; Sun, 2 Mar 2003 18:31:54 +0100 (CET) Date: Sun, 02 Mar 2003 17:52:00 -0000 Message-Id: <200303021731.h22HVsEl019548@elgar.kettenis.dyndns.org> From: Mark Kettenis To: gdb@sources.redhat.com CC: cfg@redhat.com, thropej@wasavisystems.com, rjl@sco.com, peter.schauer@regent.e-technik.tu-muenchen.de, brobecker@act-europe.fr Subject: HEADS UP: converting the i386 to the new frame unwinding stuff X-SW-Source: 2003-03/txt/msg00029.txt.bz2 Folks, I've been working on making the i386 target use the new frame unwinding stuff. I'm at a stage where I'm seeing no regressions on i386-unknown-freebsd4.7. So I'd like to check my work in, in the not too distant future. However, this is probably going to cause some fallout amongst the other targets. As far as I can see *BSD, GNU/Linux, GNU/Hurd, the various System V-derived systems (including Solaris 2.x), Netware, DJGPP, Cygwin, and the various embedded targets should be fine. My changes will break the various Sequent Symmetry targets, and I'll probably leave them broken (which they probably already are). I'll see whether I can fix LynxOS before actually committing the patch. However, Interix will need some serious work. The frame methods it redefines will have to be replaced by *_frame_pc_unwind and *_frame_id_unwind functions. Should I leave that to you Joel, or would you like me to write some initial versions and leave the necessary testing and bug-fixing to you? Mark