This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [i386newframe/PATCH] New i386newframe branch
- From: Mark Kettenis <kettenis at chello dot nl>
- To: ac131313 at redhat dot com
- Cc: gdb-patches at sources dot redhat dot com
- Date: Fri, 2 May 2003 11:29:28 +0200 (CEST)
- Subject: Re: [i386newframe/PATCH] New i386newframe branch
- References: <200304191651.h3JGp1Kr004648@elgar.kettenis.dyndns.org> <3EADA9AC.8030607@redhat.com> <200305011839.h41IdPdc000324@elgar.kettenis.dyndns.org> <3EB18FDE.9020106@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 01 May 2003 17:21:34 -0400
From: Andrew Cagney <ac131313@redhat.com>
> > + return &i386_frame_unwind;
> > +}
>
> Have you tried adding just the sigtramp unwinder? I should get just
> that addition debugged regardless - it should make migrating other ISAs
> easier.
>
> No I haven't. I don't think I can. The problem is that I simplified
> the sigtramp unwinder a bit. However in order to do so, I need to be
> able to trust the normal unwinder to unwind the stack pointer
> correctly. Unfortunately the current code is a bit sloppy about this.
Ah, yes, I know the feeling. Tighten the camshaft cover, and a
push-rods slips. Put that back, and the .... Some times it's easier to
just replace the engine.
It is unfortunatly something of an all or nothing afair. I might still
get curious though to see just what happens.
I might have something else for you to toy with. I've a prototype of
a DWARF2 CFI unwinder ready, which is working fine in my i386newframe
branch. I still need to clean up several hacks, but I might be able
to check it in soon.
Mark