From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 32507 invoked by alias); 2 Nov 2011 09:14:11 -0000 Received: (qmail 32499 invoked by uid 22791); 2 Nov 2011 09:14:10 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from relay1.mentorg.com (HELO relay1.mentorg.com) (192.94.38.131) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Wed, 02 Nov 2011 09:13:53 +0000 Received: from nat-jpt.mentorg.com ([192.94.33.2] helo=PR1-MAIL.mgc.mentorg.com) by relay1.mentorg.com with esmtp id 1RLWtL-0001OE-W8 from Yao_Qi@mentor.com ; Wed, 02 Nov 2011 02:13:52 -0700 Received: from [127.0.0.1] ([172.16.63.104]) by PR1-MAIL.mgc.mentorg.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Wed, 2 Nov 2011 18:13:50 +0900 Message-ID: <4EB109D6.7000409@codesourcery.com> Date: Wed, 02 Nov 2011 09:14:00 -0000 From: Yao Qi User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:7.0.1) Gecko/20110930 Thunderbird/7.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Mark Kettenis CC: jan.kratochvil@redhat.com, eliz@gnu.org, gdb@sourceware.org Subject: Re: Specify frame by address References: <83k47n90xn.fsf@gnu.org> <20111029174638.GA27749@host1.jankratochvil.net> <83ipn78ym5.fsf@gnu.org> <201110291843.p9TIhPoK012445@glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl> <20111029184808.GA31303@host1.jankratochvil.net> <201110301007.p9UA7LTK032001@glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl> In-Reply-To: <201110301007.p9UA7LTK032001@glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2011-11/txt/msg00015.txt.bz2 On 10/30/2011 06:07 PM, Mark Kettenis wrote: >> > If the debug info provides its own unwinder - such as DWARF does - the >> > architecture does not matter as it gets fully handled by dwarf2-frame.c. > I know how the code works; I wrote significant parts of it. The > architecture does matter, since the convention for what stack address > to use as the CFA depends on the architecture. > Mark, could you elaborate the "convention for what stack address to use as the CFA"? Is this "convention" about "CFA is usually defined by the value of SP"? and $PORT_dwarf2_frame_init_reg is to define some more or different. -- Yao (齐尧)