From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 13672 invoked by alias); 18 Aug 2006 15:15:31 -0000 Received: (qmail 13654 invoked by uid 22791); 18 Aug 2006 15:15:30 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from nevyn.them.org (HELO nevyn.them.org) (66.93.172.17) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31.1) with ESMTP; Fri, 18 Aug 2006 15:15:27 +0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 4.54) id 1GE647-0007Qa-KN; Fri, 18 Aug 2006 11:15:19 -0400 Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2006 15:15:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Andreas Jaeger Cc: Andi Kleen , Mark Kettenis , gdb@sourceware.org, libc-alpha@sourceware.org Subject: Re: Notes on a frame_unwind_address_in_block problem Message-ID: <20060818151519.GA28356@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Andreas Jaeger , Andi Kleen , Mark Kettenis , gdb@sourceware.org, libc-alpha@sourceware.org References: <20060706222157.GA1377@nevyn.them.org> <200608030438.18827.ak@suse.de> <20060803024819.GA6543@nevyn.them.org> <200608030511.46390.ak@suse.de> <20060803032136.GA7647@nevyn.them.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11+cvs20060403 X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2006-08/txt/msg00136.txt.bz2 On Fri, Aug 18, 2006 at 05:07:47PM +0200, Andreas Jaeger wrote: > Daniel Jacobowitz writes: > > > [...] > > Good enough for me. Andreas, in that case, is the patch in > > http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb/2006-07/msg00131.html OK? > > Why are you using your own cf macros? We have e.g. CFI_STARTPROC (see > sysdeps/generic/sysdep.h) and those should be used, I wrote earlier: > But, FYI, you can't actually write the unwind tables for these using > .cfi_* directives. I tried. I'd need at least three new directives > to do it sanely (for uleb128 escapes, sleb128 escapes, and adding the > "S" augmentation). So I did it by hand, basically copied from the > i386 vDSO, but simpler since we don't need any pushes or pops. Even if I assume a brand new binutils which supports the "S" augmentation, I would still need to hand-expand uleb128 and sleb128. I thought there was another reason beyond that one too, but now I can't remember it. I could try again (I did this but didn't save the patch). But I really don't like having to assume the "S" support is present and generating bogus unwind info if it isn't. I suppose I could simply omit the unwind info if it isn't. Want me to try that? -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery