From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 17238 invoked by alias); 9 Apr 2002 19:17:39 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 17214 invoked from network); 9 Apr 2002 19:17:38 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO localhost.redhat.com) (216.138.202.10) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 9 Apr 2002 19:17:38 -0000 Received: from cygnus.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 383483CC2; Tue, 9 Apr 2002 15:17:40 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <3CB33E54.6050605@cygnus.com> Date: Tue, 09 Apr 2002 12:17:00 -0000 From: Andrew Cagney User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; NetBSD macppc; en-US; rv:0.9.9) Gecko/20020328 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Daniel Berlin Cc: gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: think-o: dwarf2 CFA != frame->frame (x86-64) References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2002-04/txt/msg00140.txt.bz2 >> Please re-read what I wrote. > > > You said " The problem is that this algorithm assumes that each frame uses > the same mechanism for locating register values. With > the introduction of dwarf2cfi, this is no longer > true. Some frames may use the debug info while others may use the > old prologue analysis technique. > " > > You are incorrect. We're going to have to agree to disagree. > It's an either-or case. Never is their a mixture of methods, unless you do > something illegal. If GDB decides to do what you state, it will be incapable of unwinding through libraries (where there is no debug info). I think that is a significant feature loss and one I don't consder acceptable. I see no reason why GDB shouldn't act ``illegally'' and use the traditional prolog scanner as a fallback to debug info. Andrew