From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 11214 invoked by alias); 27 Mar 2003 17:24:14 -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 11207 invoked from network); 27 Mar 2003 17:24:13 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 27 Mar 2003 17:24:13 -0000 Received: from int-mx2.corp.redhat.com (nat-pool-rdu-dmz.redhat.com [172.16.52.200] (may be forged)) by mx1.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2RHODQ15835 for ; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 12:24:13 -0500 Received: from potter.sfbay.redhat.com (potter.sfbay.redhat.com [172.16.27.15]) by int-mx2.corp.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2RHOCQ16879 for ; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 12:24:12 -0500 Received: from cygbert.vinschen.de (vpn50-14.rdu.redhat.com [172.16.50.14]) by potter.sfbay.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2RHOB528856 for ; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 09:24:11 -0800 Received: (from corinna@localhost) by cygbert.vinschen.de (8.11.6/8.9.3/Linux sendmail 8.9.3) id h2RHO9m24750 for gdb@sources.redhat.com; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 18:24:09 +0100 Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 17:24:00 -0000 From: Corinna Vinschen To: gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [RFC] Is inside_entry_file useful and needed? Message-ID: <20030327172408.GO23762@cygbert.vinschen.de> Reply-To: gdb@sources.redhat.com Mail-Followup-To: gdb@sources.redhat.com References: <20030326135455.GV23762@cygbert.vinschen.de> <3E833001.8070809@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3E833001.8070809@redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i X-SW-Source: 2003-03/txt/msg00376.txt.bz2 On Thu, Mar 27, 2003 at 12:08:17PM -0500, Andrew Cagney wrote: > >Hi, > > > >the reason I'm going to discuss the inside_entry_file() function is that > >I had trouble with the asm-source.exp tests on both platforms I currently > >care about, Cygwin and XStormy16, one native, one embedded target. > > Please note that these tests work on i386 GNU/Linux (and d10v). I don't doubt that they work on other targets but they apparently fail due to the calls of the inside_entry_file() for these two targets. Note that Linux doesn't need the inside_entry_file() function. All tests are still working as expected if all calls are dropped as in my patch on gdb-patches. > >frame.c::get_prev_frame(): > >[...] > This thest terminates the unwind after there has been a stack frame in > the startup file. Remember, the d10v, which only relies on this test, > works. Please note that I don't say to remove the inside_entry_file() tests entirely from gdb. But it's obviously wrong to call this stuff inside of the generic functionality. This should remain in some way inside of the target specific code. Either by having a way to disable the calls for a target or by having a architecture method which is called from inside the inside_entry_file() function itself. > Is there something significnatly different between i386 GNU/Linux and, > say, cygwin? I'm not quite sure what you're up to. There are a whole bunch of differences probably, e. g. how applications (even assembler apps) are linked. Corinna -- Corinna Vinschen Cygwin Developer Red Hat, Inc. mailto:vinschen@redhat.com