From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 12793 invoked by alias); 11 Aug 2004 17:51:01 -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 12786 invoked from network); 11 Aug 2004 17:51:00 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 11 Aug 2004 17:51:00 -0000 Received: from int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (int-mx1.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.254]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i7BHote3010738 for ; Wed, 11 Aug 2004 13:51:00 -0400 Received: from localhost.redhat.com (porkchop.devel.redhat.com [172.16.58.2]) by int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i7BHoia23751; Wed, 11 Aug 2004 13:50:49 -0400 Received: from gnu.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C3BB52B9D; Wed, 11 Aug 2004 13:50:38 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <411A5C6E.5000904@gnu.org> Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2004 17:51:00 -0000 From: Andrew Cagney User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; NetBSD macppc; en-GB; rv:1.4.1) Gecko/20040801 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Roland McGrath , Mark Kettenis Cc: gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: Identifying bottom-of-stack References: <200408052018.i75KIXAZ023214@magilla.sf.frob.com> In-Reply-To: <200408052018.i75KIXAZ023214@magilla.sf.frob.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2004-08/txt/msg00176.txt.bz2 > [Andrew says:] > >>>> > > - GLIBC marking those outermost frames with CFI indicating that both the >>>> > > CFA and the RA are "unknown"? >> >>> >>> s/unknown/undefined/ > > > Perhaps this addresses Mark's request for precision in terminology, but it > doesn't clarify anything for me. Does this "undefined" mean the > "undefined" used in the DWARF spec? Does DW_CFA_def_cfa with some register + > DW_CFA_undefined on that register in fact yield this? Is that the only way > to produce it? Yes. CFA's "undefined", that would yield what we need. > Is it the optimal way? I don't know. > These are the questions I meant to imply when I asked, > "What would such CFI look like exactly?" > > If you want me to do it, step one is always to specify it completely. I gather that no one's found a hole in the theory, I guess it is time to prototype it in, I guess, GDB's testsuite. Andrew