From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 30455 invoked by alias); 30 Oct 2011 10:07:46 -0000 Received: (qmail 30446 invoked by uid 22791); 30 Oct 2011 10:07:44 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from sibelius.xs4all.nl (HELO glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl) (83.163.83.176) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Sun, 30 Oct 2011 10:07:31 +0000 Received: from glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl (kettenis@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl (8.14.5/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p9UA7OJX010115; Sun, 30 Oct 2011 11:07:24 +0100 (CET) Received: (from kettenis@localhost) by glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl (8.14.5/8.14.3/Submit) id p9UA7LTK032001; Sun, 30 Oct 2011 11:07:21 +0100 (CET) Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2011 13:21:00 -0000 Message-Id: <201110301007.p9UA7LTK032001@glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl> From: Mark Kettenis To: jan.kratochvil@redhat.com CC: mark.kettenis@xs4all.nl, eliz@gnu.org, gdb@sourceware.org In-reply-to: <20111029184808.GA31303@host1.jankratochvil.net> (message from Jan Kratochvil on Sat, 29 Oct 2011 20:48:08 +0200) Subject: Re: Specify frame by address References: <83k47n90xn.fsf@gnu.org> <20111029174638.GA27749@host1.jankratochvil.net> <83ipn78ym5.fsf@gnu.org> <201110291843.p9TIhPoK012445@glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl> <20111029184808.GA31303@host1.jankratochvil.net> 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: 2011-10/txt/msg00226.txt.bz2 > Date: Sat, 29 Oct 2011 20:48:08 +0200 > From: Jan Kratochvil > > On Sat, 29 Oct 2011 20:43:25 +0200, Mark Kettenis wrote: > > > What is it for stabs? More generally, suppose I wanted to make the > > > manual more clear on this matter, what could I tell the user about > > > how to find out this address? > > > > The debug info format isn't really relevant. It's the architecture > > that matters. > > If the debug info provides its own unwinder - such as DWARF does - the > architecture does not matter as it gets fully handled by dwarf2-frame.c. I know how the code works; I wrote significant parts of it. The architecture does matter, since the convention for what stack address to use as the CFA depends on the architecture. > It is true anything besides DWARF - like STABS - just falls back to the > architecture unwinder. And that is why the DWARF unwinder and the architecture unwinders should use the same convention. So far we've always adjusted the architecture unwinders to match he DWARF unwinder as that was easiest and the DWARF CFA turned out to be a meaningful address on those architectures. But if that turns out not to be the case for some future architecture we will have to add a gdbarch method for the DWARF unwinder to call that fixes things up.