From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 11662 invoked by alias); 22 May 2008 14:40:00 -0000 Received: (qmail 11650 invoked by uid 22791); 22 May 2008 14:39:59 -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; Thu, 22 May 2008 14:39:39 +0000 Received: from nan.false.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C484D9809F; Thu, 22 May 2008 14:39:37 +0000 (GMT) Received: from caradoc.them.org (22.svnf5.xdsl.nauticom.net [209.195.183.55]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B001C9809E; Thu, 22 May 2008 14:39:37 +0000 (GMT) Received: from drow by caradoc.them.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1JzBxA-0008OO-Sd; Thu, 22 May 2008 10:39:36 -0400 Date: Thu, 22 May 2008 14:50:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Aleksandar Ristovski Cc: gdb@sourceware.org Subject: Re: Frame lost after 'leave' and before 'ret' instruction on i386? Message-ID: <20080522143936.GA32221@caradoc.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Aleksandar Ristovski , gdb@sourceware.org References: <482DA814.7030703@qnx.com> <20080516155828.GA31038@caradoc.them.org> <48358355.7050500@qnx.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <48358355.7050500@qnx.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2008-05-11) 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: 2008-05/txt/msg00157.txt.bz2 On Thu, May 22, 2008 at 10:29:41AM -0400, Aleksandar Ristovski wrote: > Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: >> >> When DWARF unwinding is not in use, there's the in_epilogue_p hook. >> Prologue analyzers could also detect epilogues using the same >> technique. But this is slow and complicated. >> > > Interestingly, the only mention of in_epilogue_p I found is in > ChangeLog-2004, but not a trace of it in the code? As if it was > silently removed without mentioning it in the ChangeLog. As if one changelog writer made the same typo I did; it's gdbarch_in_function_epilogue_p. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery