From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 4615 invoked by alias); 26 Jun 2003 04:56:52 -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 25106 invoked from network); 26 Jun 2003 02:14:48 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO crack.them.org) (146.82.138.56) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 26 Jun 2003 02:14:48 -0000 Received: from dsl093-172-017.pit1.dsl.speakeasy.net ([66.93.172.17] helo=nevyn.them.org ident=mail) by crack.them.org with asmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 19VMIX-0001gT-00; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 21:15:41 -0500 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian)) id 19VMHc-0003Ft-00; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 22:14:44 -0400 Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2003 04:56:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Andrew Cagney , gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: Enable frame-base before frame-unwind? Message-ID: <20030626021443.GA12416@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Andrew Cagney , gdb@sources.redhat.com References: <3EF9C2F1.7040904@redhat.com> <20030625170253.GA23496@nevyn.them.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20030625170253.GA23496@nevyn.them.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.1i X-SW-Source: 2003-06/txt/msg00480.txt.bz2 On Wed, Jun 25, 2003 at 01:02:53PM -0400, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > On Wed, Jun 25, 2003 at 11:42:41AM -0400, Andrew Cagney wrote: > > Here's a new theory on how to migrate to the unwind code: > > > > Enable frame-base before frame-unwind. > > > > Why? The frame-unwind code can't be enabled until frame-base is working > > anyway. Since frame-base is an almost direct replacement for > > FRAME_LOCALS_ADDRESS and FRAME_ARGS_ADDRESS, and the return values for > > the old/new methods are the same, I think getting frame-base working is > > going to be much easier than getting frame-unwind working. Since > > frame-base and frame-unwind share the prologue analysis code, debugging > > it with the less harmful frame-base should make life easier. > > > > Any one want to prove the theory? > > ... sure. > I think you've answered this once already, but is there a list of > routines that have needed to change, so far? Or do I need to put one > together as I go along? I don't think the theory holds. I picked ARM, because I've been meaning to work on framifying ARM for some time now. Just like Richard, I've been running over and over into places where it's just not clear what the new code is supposed to do, or how it's supposed to do it. So take this with a grain of salt. ARM defines neither FRAME_LOCALS_ADDRESS or FRAME_ARGS_ADDRESS. Both default to the value of get_frame_base. In order to frame-base-ify it, I would have to move all the code which unwinds the frame base to the new structure, and I can't figure out how. I'm looking over the AVR patch now... -- Daniel Jacobowitz MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer