From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 7251 invoked by alias); 13 Aug 2003 17:43:30 -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 7188 invoked from network); 13 Aug 2003 17:43:29 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO concert.shout.net) (204.253.184.25) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 13 Aug 2003 17:43:29 -0000 Received: from duracef.shout.net (duracef.shout.net [204.253.184.12]) by concert.shout.net (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h7DHhSJe013798; Wed, 13 Aug 2003 12:43:28 -0500 Received: from duracef.shout.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by duracef.shout.net (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h7DHhSHK009379; Wed, 13 Aug 2003 12:43:28 -0500 Received: (from mec@localhost) by duracef.shout.net (8.12.9/8.12.9/Submit) id h7DHhRIL009378; Wed, 13 Aug 2003 13:43:27 -0400 Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2003 17:43:00 -0000 From: Michael Elizabeth Chastain Message-Id: <200308131743.h7DHhRIL009378@duracef.shout.net> To: ac131313@redhat.com, gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [Fwd: Unwinding through `no return'?] X-SW-Source: 2003-08/txt/msg00139.txt.bz2 Three comments, kinda superficial: Sometimes the caller will be in code with no debug info, such as library code. RA-1 would be good there. Look at the case where the operating system delivers a signal and sets up a sigreturn frame. In that case, a return address on a stack really does point to the first instruction of a function (__restore on my red hat linux 8 box). RA-1 would be bad there. Someone, maybe rth?, mentioned that on some architectures, the ABI requires a nop instruction after a noreturn call. If we ask gcc to do something like that in all cases it might make our job easier. Michael C