From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 1382 invoked by alias); 22 May 2008 16:02:18 -0000 Received: (qmail 1372 invoked by uid 22791); 22 May 2008 16:02:17 -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 16:01:58 +0000 Received: from nan.false.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5FBB29809F; Thu, 22 May 2008 16:01:56 +0000 (GMT) Received: from caradoc.them.org (22.svnf5.xdsl.nauticom.net [209.195.183.55]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 420FF9809E; Thu, 22 May 2008 16:01:56 +0000 (GMT) Received: from drow by caradoc.them.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1JzDEp-0002mo-5v; Thu, 22 May 2008 12:01:55 -0400 Date: Fri, 23 May 2008 17:11:00 -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: <20080522160155.GA10624@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> <20080522143936.GA32221@caradoc.them.org> <48358860.5010703@qnx.com> <20080522150458.GA1274@caradoc.them.org> <4835989F.3090900@qnx.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4835989F.3090900@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/msg00163.txt.bz2 On Thu, May 22, 2008 at 12:00:31PM -0400, Aleksandar Ristovski wrote: > Am I again missing something big or is this really being called only from breakpoint.c? > > I would imagine it should be called from other spots as well. I find > handle_inferior_status quite complicated and do not fully understand > it, but shouldn't it be called from there as well (when stepi-ing, > we need to know if the frame can be created or not). Why would we need to know whether we were in an epilogue? If you want to be able to backtrace, this hook isn't going to help you; your unwinders have to cope. I hacked the ARM one to do this once but I don't see a general solution. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery