From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 22669 invoked by alias); 25 Jun 2003 16:51:42 -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 19400 invoked from network); 25 Jun 2003 15:47:35 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO localhost.redhat.com) (207.219.125.131) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 25 Jun 2003 15:47:35 -0000 Received: from redhat.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 133A02B5F for ; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 11:42:42 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <3EF9C2F1.7040904@redhat.com> Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2003 16:51:00 -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: gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Enable frame-base before frame-unwind? Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2003-06/txt/msg00475.txt.bz2 Here's a new theory on how to migrate to the unwind code: Enable frame-base before frame-unwind. Why? The frame-unwind code can't be enabled until frame-base is working anyway. Since frame-base is an almost direct replacement for FRAME_LOCALS_ADDRESS and FRAME_ARGS_ADDRESS, and the return values for the old/new methods are the same, I think getting frame-base working is going to be much easier than getting frame-unwind working. Since frame-base and frame-unwind share the prologue analysis code, debugging it with the less harmful frame-base should make life easier. Any one want to prove the theory? Andrew