From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 21612 invoked by alias); 4 Apr 2008 11:43:15 -0000 Received: (qmail 21604 invoked by uid 22791); 4 Apr 2008 11:43:14 -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, 04 Apr 2008 11:42:46 +0000 Received: from nan.false.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9F4F6983BE; Fri, 4 Apr 2008 11:42:44 +0000 (GMT) Received: from caradoc.them.org (22.svnf5.xdsl.nauticom.net [209.195.183.55]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 89C37982C4; Fri, 4 Apr 2008 11:42:44 +0000 (GMT) Received: from drow by caradoc.them.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1JhkJf-0001PU-1z; Fri, 04 Apr 2008 07:42:43 -0400 Date: Fri, 04 Apr 2008 17:37:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Antony KING Cc: gdb@sourceware.org Subject: Re: Problem setting registers if stack point or frame pointer is 0 Message-ID: <20080404114242.GA5203@caradoc.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Antony KING , gdb@sourceware.org References: <47F54DAD.9070302@st.com> <20080403214752.GA20869@caradoc.them.org> <47F6101A.1020505@st.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <47F6101A.1020505@st.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-12-11) 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: 2008-04/txt/msg00042.txt.bz2 On Fri, Apr 04, 2008 at 12:25:14PM +0100, Antony KING wrote: > Thanks for the information. Is the hack you mention the suggestion (you > gave to my colleague) in the following response? > > http://www.cygwin.com/ml/gdb-patches/2006-05/msg00018.html > > We did have this patch applied at some point in earlier versions of our > GDB but we seem to have lost it along the way :-(. > > Anyway it looks to be a better solution than the one I suggested (as > every user of frame_find_by_id() will benefit), so I will reapply it to > our version of GDB (unless you have a better version). Yes, that's it. I still think it's gross and nasty, but I also still haven't managed to come up with a better fix. Maybe after I'm done with my current set of unwinder changes. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery