From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 6307 invoked by alias); 26 Feb 2003 01:28:23 -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 6300 invoked from network); 26 Feb 2003 01:28:22 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO localhost.redhat.com) (172.16.49.200) by 172.16.49.205 with SMTP; 26 Feb 2003 01:28:22 -0000 Received: from redhat.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BC6A42A9C; Tue, 25 Feb 2003 20:30:38 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3E5C18BE.30801@redhat.com> Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 01:28:00 -0000 From: Andrew Cagney User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; NetBSD macppc; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20030223 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Michael Elizabeth Chastain Cc: gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: Identifying a dummy frame using a frame id References: <200302260120.h1Q1K6g15139@duracef.shout.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2003-02/txt/msg00551.txt.bz2 >> Now, there is a little detail missing - how GDB relocate the dummy frame >> object that contains those saved registers. The problem is that GDB >> can't just take the most recent one as, due to long jumps and the like, >> it can be wrong. > > > I can't comment on the internal mechanism, but I know that as a user of > gdb, if something happens during a hand function call to marker2() like > gdb hitting another breakpoint or me hitting ^C, then gdb starts acting > a little drunk at that point. So I bet that explicit save/restore of > these frames would help. FYI, that's a different problem. This proposal just refines the mechanism used to identify a dummy frame. For something like the i386, there would be no immediate change in behavior. Andrew