Re: Dwarf-2 unwinding vs. manual prologue analysis

Re: Dwarf-2 unwinding vs. manual prologue analysis

[Orjan Friberg]

Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> Please use gdb@ for questions; I expect most messages to gdb-patches to
> be in need of review :-)

Sorry about that.  Fixed (even though I guess it might break the threading).

> On Thu, May 26, 2005 at 04:59:05PM +0200, Orjan Friberg wrote:
>>
>>Do I need to able to do manual prologue analysis when there's Dwarf-2 CFI 
>>available?  If so, is there a set of minimum requirements for what that 
>>analysis must be able figure out?
> 
> 
> No.  If enabling the DWARF-2 CFI support causes things to break, then
> you need to inspect your CFI; it is probably broken.  

I'm not sure I understand what you mean.  Are you saying that the CFI might be 
broken if the manual prologue analysis is used in cases where the Dwarf-2 CFI 
should be available (and sufficient)?  Since I don't have a correct prologue 
scanner for CRISv32, nothing would work without having the Dwarf-2 frame sniffer 
hooked in.

> You need to do
> prologue analysis if there's anything without CFI that you need to
> handle, which there usually is - for instance PLT stubs.

Ok, I'll look into that.  Thanks.

-- 
Orjan Friberg
Axis Communications

Re: Dwarf-2 unwinding vs. manual prologue analysis

[Orjan Friberg]

Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> 
> No.  If enabling the DWARF-2 CFI support causes things to break, then
> you need to inspect your CFI; it is probably broken.  You need to do
> prologue analysis if there's anything without CFI that you need to
> handle, which there usually is - for instance PLT stubs.

Ah, now I see.  The things that broke without any prologue scanning were indeed 
things like 'next' over library calls (PLT stubs) and things related to call 
dummys (callfuncs.exp).

-- 
Orjan Friberg
Axis Communications