From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 16973 invoked by alias); 6 Apr 2004 23:34:33 -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 16908 invoked from network); 6 Apr 2004 23:34:26 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO walton.kettenis.dyndns.org) (213.93.114.7) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 6 Apr 2004 23:34:26 -0000 Received: from elgar.kettenis.dyndns.org (elgar.kettenis.dyndns.org [192.168.0.2]) by walton.kettenis.dyndns.org (8.12.6p3/8.12.6) with ESMTP id i36NXe0J000261; Wed, 7 Apr 2004 01:33:40 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from kettenis@elgar.kettenis.dyndns.org) Received: from elgar.kettenis.dyndns.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by elgar.kettenis.dyndns.org (8.12.6p3/8.12.6) with ESMTP id i36NXdkF001229; Wed, 7 Apr 2004 01:33:39 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from kettenis@elgar.kettenis.dyndns.org) Received: (from kettenis@localhost) by elgar.kettenis.dyndns.org (8.12.6p3/8.12.6/Submit) id i36NXYtK001226; Wed, 7 Apr 2004 01:33:34 +0200 (CEST) Date: Tue, 06 Apr 2004 23:34:00 -0000 Message-Id: <200404062333.i36NXYtK001226@elgar.kettenis.dyndns.org> From: Mark Kettenis To: drow@false.org CC: cagney@gnu.org, gdb@sources.redhat.com In-reply-to: <20040406215810.GA28116@nevyn.them.org> (message from Daniel Jacobowitz on Tue, 6 Apr 2004 17:58:10 -0400) Subject: Re: [mips] When to use a proc_desc References: <20040325040322.GA12885@nevyn.them.org> <4062FCC4.5080102@gnu.org> <4073279E.2030807@gnu.org> <20040406215810.GA28116@nevyn.them.org> X-SW-Source: 2004-04/txt/msg00048.txt.bz2 Date: Tue, 6 Apr 2004 17:58:10 -0400 From: Daniel Jacobowitz On Tue, Apr 06, 2004 at 05:56:46PM -0400, Andrew Cagney wrote: > >I'll need to study this further, however, look at HP/UX. > > > >That unwinder checks its equivalent PDR against the prologue, ticking each > >register off as it is encountered. > > I think the long answer is the same -- look at HP/UX. Fetch the PDR and > then compare it against the instructions up-to $pc to see how many of > those stores actually occured. I think that defeats the point of having the proc_desc in the first place. If we're only going to acknowledge register saves that we can 'easily' find, then why bother reading any of this out of the proc_desc at all? Because it allows one to determine where the prologue actually ends, which is after all registers described by the descriptor have been saved. Mark