From: Andrew Cagney <ac131313@cygnus.com>
To: Daniel Berlin <dan@dberlin.org>
Cc: gdb@sources.redhat.com
Subject: Re: think-o: dwarf2 CFA != frame->frame (x86-64)
Date: Tue, 09 Apr 2002 10:58:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <3CB32BB1.2010007@cygnus.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0204091248440.11863-100000@dberlin.org>
> On Tue, 9 Apr 2002, Andrew Cagney wrote:
>
>
>> >
>> > It might just be misnamed.
>
>>
>> No. DW_OP_fbreg refers explicitly to DW_AT_frame_base. CFA is a
>> concept local to the CFI. They would typically evaluate to the same
>> value though.
>
> DW_AT_frame_base is part of the .debug_info section.
> This is symbolic debug info, none of which is required to be present in an
> executable
> On the other hand, the CFA info is required to be present on x86-64,
> specifically for the purposes of unwinding the stack.
And?
> So you can't say that it should use DW_AT_frame_base. It can't.
> DW_AT_frame_base is a completely different concept. It is not intended to
> have anything to do with unwinding the stack. It also has nothing
> necessarily to do with a real frame base. See 3.3.5. This is why it's in
> quotes. Most compiler use it in way 1 described in that section, to
> simplify location descriptions.
(Didn't I point you at 3.3.5? :-).
Location expressions use DW_OP_fbreg when they need to refer to the
stack. DW_OP_fpreg is defined in terms of DW_AT_frame_base. Can you
please point me to the section where a location expression OP directly
(not indirectly as in a register) refers to the CFA?
> For all intents and purposes, the CFA is the frame base when using dwarf2
> cfi info.
If you read my original e-mail, you'll notice that I observed that the
two most likely end up having the same value.
Andrew
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2002-04-09 17:58 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2002-04-08 22:45 Andrew Cagney
2002-04-08 23:43 ` Daniel Berlin
2002-04-09 9:12 ` Andrew Cagney
2002-04-09 10:03 ` Daniel Berlin
2002-04-09 10:32 ` Andrew Cagney
2002-04-09 10:58 ` Daniel Berlin
2002-04-09 12:17 ` Andrew Cagney
2002-04-09 12:42 ` Daniel Berlin
2002-04-09 10:58 ` Andrew Cagney [this message]
2002-04-09 11:00 ` Daniel Berlin
2002-04-09 11:52 ` Andrew Cagney
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=3CB32BB1.2010007@cygnus.com \
--to=ac131313@cygnus.com \
--cc=dan@dberlin.org \
--cc=gdb@sources.redhat.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox