Re: frame->unwind->this_base()

Andrew Cagney
2003-03-18T15:22:05Z

>
> 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 :-).

A better question is, what about other debug types? The definition of
the frame-base is dependant on the debug info.

Dig dig. Other debug info (e.g., LOC_LOCAL) depends on
FRAME_LOCALS_ADDRESS(). So to take this a step further, it is a merged
FRAME_LOCALS_ADDRESS() + get_frame_base() that is needs to become per frame.

> If so, we're going to need to go
> through all the uses and computations of the frame base in all targets
> for consistency.

All existing calls to get_frame_base() in core-gdb need to be audited
anyway :-( This is so that breakage such as VALUE_FRAME() can finally
be laid to rest (see "frame.h", "frame ID" for why get_frame_base()
isn't up to the task).

Andrew