From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 19623 invoked by alias); 22 May 2008 14:51:07 -0000 Received: (qmail 19608 invoked by uid 22791); 22 May 2008 14:51:07 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from main.gmane.org (HELO ciao.gmane.org) (80.91.229.2) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Thu, 22 May 2008 14:50:40 +0000 Received: from list by ciao.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1JzC7m-0003gh-7q for gdb@sources.redhat.com; Thu, 22 May 2008 14:50:34 +0000 Received: from mobius.qnx.com ([209.226.137.108]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Thu, 22 May 2008 14:50:34 +0000 Received: from aristovski by mobius.qnx.com with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Thu, 22 May 2008 14:50:34 +0000 To: gdb@sources.redhat.com From: Aleksandar Ristovski Subject: Re: Frame lost after 'leave' and before 'ret' instruction on i386? Date: Thu, 22 May 2008 16:00:00 -0000 Message-ID: <48358860.5010703@qnx.com> References: <482DA814.7030703@qnx.com> <20080516155828.GA31038@caradoc.them.org> <48358355.7050500@qnx.com> <20080522143936.GA32221@caradoc.them.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.14 (Windows/20080421) In-Reply-To: <20080522143936.GA32221@caradoc.them.org> 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/msg00159.txt.bz2 Message-ID: <20080522160000.9MvzbN_4U2wC0aGF7GNB7ZDqrwzNKypoM2UoloDfPeo@z> Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > 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. > Ah. So from what I can see, they all rely on symbol info (find_pc_partial_function). Apparently I am missing something: if I were to write an "in_function_epilogue_p" for i386, why would I need the debug info? As a minimum, I want to check if we are at one of 'ret' instructions - no debug info needed.