From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 29479 invoked by alias); 18 Mar 2003 17:11:27 -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 29451 invoked from network); 18 Mar 2003 17:11:27 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO crack.them.org) (65.125.64.184) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 18 Mar 2003 17:11:27 -0000 Received: from nevyn.them.org ([66.93.61.169] ident=mail) by crack.them.org with asmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 18vMVz-0005I7-00; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 13:12:47 -0600 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian)) id 18vKcW-0007J2-00; Tue, 18 Mar 2003 12:11:24 -0500 Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 17:11:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Andrew Cagney Cc: gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: frame->unwind->this_base() Message-ID: <20030318171124.GA27974@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Andrew Cagney , gdb@sources.redhat.com References: <20030317163843.GA11494@nevyn.them.org> <3E75FE48.9000104@redhat.com> <20030317171142.GA15367@nevyn.them.org> <3E7611EC.3020304@redhat.com> <20030317193537.GA11288@nevyn.them.org> <3E7670F6.9060906@redhat.com> <20030318051348.GA19741@nevyn.them.org> <3E773325.8090001@redhat.com> <20030318155007.GA26362@nevyn.them.org> <3E775106.8030609@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3E775106.8030609@redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.1i X-SW-Source: 2003-03/txt/msg00281.txt.bz2 On Tue, Mar 18, 2003 at 12:01:58PM -0500, Andrew Cagney wrote: > >On Tue, Mar 18, 2003 at 09:54:29AM -0500, Andrew Cagney wrote: > > > >>> > >>>So in this case should we be hooking the get_frame_base() call to > >>>return the computed DW_AT_frame_base? [...] And what happens if we > >>don't >have DWARF-2 > >>>information? > > > >> > >>At the start I wrote: > >> > > > >>> For dwarf2 frames, it would return, DW_AT_frame_base. For prologue > > > >>frames, it would return an attempt at an equivalent value. Hopefully it > >>wouldn't be called for other frame types :-). > > > > > >OK. I'll make the assumption that the DW_AT_frame_base and the CFA in > >the dwarf2 unwind information (if both present) will agree. > > That would be a very bad assumption. They are pratically guarenteed to > be different. Then what do you mean by a "dwarf2 frame"? I'd assume you meant the CFA, but it sounds like you mean a frame for which we have dwarf2 .debug_info. Checking, I do see that they're different... Hum. We need both concepts obviously, and I need to reread this dwarf3 draft on my desk. -- Daniel Jacobowitz MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer