From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 16503 invoked by alias); 19 Oct 2007 11:43:57 -0000 Received: (qmail 16492 invoked by uid 22791); 19 Oct 2007 11:43:55 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from NaN.false.org (HELO nan.false.org) (208.75.86.248) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Fri, 19 Oct 2007 11:43:51 +0000 Received: from nan.false.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B609C982CA for ; Fri, 19 Oct 2007 11:43:49 +0000 (GMT) Received: from caradoc.them.org (22.svnf5.xdsl.nauticom.net [209.195.183.55]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9D85B980A7 for ; Fri, 19 Oct 2007 11:43:49 +0000 (GMT) Received: from drow by caradoc.them.org with local (Exim 4.68) (envelope-from ) id 1IiqGa-0007G9-Qz for gdb@sourceware.org; Fri, 19 Oct 2007 07:43:48 -0400 Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2007 11:43:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: gdb@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [RFC] Using values to handle unwinding Message-ID: <20071019114348.GA27622@caradoc.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: gdb@sourceware.org References: <20071017160350.GA26804@caradoc.them.org> <20071019042951.GA6168@adacore.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20071019042951.GA6168@adacore.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.15 (2007-04-09) X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2007-10/txt/msg00166.txt.bz2 On Thu, Oct 18, 2007 at 09:29:51PM -0700, Joel Brobecker wrote: > I don't mind breaking all the targets if this is the way we want > to do it. But either way, whether we use a branch or not, I'd like > us to break the target by breaking the build. This way, managing to > build again means we're done with the conversion. > > If I understand the patch correctly, this is going to be the case, > right? You're removing some old routines, and replacing with a > new one that has a different name. The version I posted would leave other targets working, so they could be switched one at a time. Not the best way to handle a transition, but it saved me having to convert the other non-dwarf unwinders in the build I was testing. If we're going to make a switch I think changing the signature of unwind->prev_register would be best; that will stop other targets from compiling (and remove some of the ugly bits of the patch, too). -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery