From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 4173 invoked by alias); 21 Aug 2006 08:50:42 -0000 Received: (qmail 4157 invoked by uid 22791); 21 Aug 2006 08:50:41 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx2.suse.de (HELO mx2.suse.de) (195.135.220.15) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Mon, 21 Aug 2006 08:50:34 +0000 Received: from Relay1.suse.de (mail2.suse.de [195.135.221.8]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx2.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0B67A20143; Mon, 21 Aug 2006 10:50:30 +0200 (CEST) From: Andreas Jaeger To: Andi Kleen Cc: Mark Kettenis , gdb@sourceware.org, libc-alpha@sourceware.org Subject: Re: Notes on a frame_unwind_address_in_block problem References: <20060706222157.GA1377@nevyn.them.org> <200608030438.18827.ak@suse.de> <20060803024819.GA6543@nevyn.them.org> <200608030511.46390.ak@suse.de> <20060803032136.GA7647@nevyn.them.org> <20060818151519.GA28356@nevyn.them.org> OpenPGP: id=C272A126; url=http://www.suse.de/~aj/keys.txt Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2006 08:50:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <20060818151519.GA28356@nevyn.them.org> (Daniel Jacobowitz's message of "Fri, 18 Aug 2006 11:15:19 -0400") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.110004 (No Gnus v0.4) Emacs/21.3 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature" Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2006-08/txt/msg00149.txt.bz2 --=-=-= Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-length: 1564 Daniel Jacobowitz writes: > On Fri, Aug 18, 2006 at 05:07:47PM +0200, Andreas Jaeger wrote: >> Daniel Jacobowitz writes: >>=20 >> > [...] >> > Good enough for me. Andreas, in that case, is the patch in >> > http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb/2006-07/msg00131.html OK? >>=20 >> Why are you using your own cf macros? We have e.g. CFI_STARTPROC (see >> sysdeps/generic/sysdep.h) and those should be used, > > I wrote earlier: > >> But, FYI, you can't actually write the unwind tables for these using >> .cfi_* directives. I tried. I'd need at least three new directives >> to do it sanely (for uleb128 escapes, sleb128 escapes, and adding the >> "S" augmentation). So I did it by hand, basically copied from the >> i386 vDSO, but simpler since we don't need any pushes or pops. > > Even if I assume a brand new binutils which supports the "S" > augmentation, I would still need to hand-expand uleb128 and sleb128. > I thought there was another reason beyond that one too, but now I > can't remember it. I could try again (I did this but didn't save the > patch). But I really don't like having to assume the "S" support > is present and generating bogus unwind info if it isn't. > > I suppose I could simply omit the unwind info if it isn't. Want > me to try that? Ah I see. Ulrich, Roland, what do you suggest here? Andreas --=20 Andreas Jaeger, aj@suse.de, http://www.suse.de/~aj/ SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 N=FCrnberg, Germany GPG fingerprint =3D 93A3 365E CE47 B889 DF7F FED1 389A 563C C272 A126 --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-length: 188 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFE6XPVOJpWPMJyoSYRAvh7AJ9ACsCBYW8IJ0bsNo6JspiwJh7wFQCdEf7t HLcgLxP5VvwU+H0Ce21sOlY= =Gnhp -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=--