This is the mail archive of the gdb-prs@sources.redhat.com mailing list for the GDB project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

gdb/736: Add per frame frame_saved_pc()


>Number:         736
>Category:       gdb
>Synopsis:       Add per frame frame_saved_pc()
>Confidential:   no
>Severity:       serious
>Priority:       medium
>Responsible:    unassigned
>State:          open
>Class:          change-request
>Submitter-Id:   net
>Arrival-Date:   Fri Sep 27 10:48:02 PDT 2002
>Closed-Date:
>Last-Modified:
>Originator:     ac131313@redhat.com
>Release:        unknown-1.0
>Organization:
>Environment:

>Description:
See:
http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb/2002-09/msg00301.html

Hello,

Back to (trumpet noises) CFI and more fall-out from the MIPS and generic dummy frames.

- The CFI doco describes a ``return_address_register'' which ``[...] might not correspond to a machine register''.  This means a CFI specific frame saved PC method.

- Given a generic dummy frame, it knows exactly where the callers frame PC is.  No need to ask the target code.

With this in mind, I'd like to propose making frame_saved_pc() a per-frame method.

Thoughts?

To be honest, it is largely motivated by me having to wade though the MIPS code and add if(PC_IN_CALL_DUMMY()) to everything - I'm hopeing to avoid it next time :-)

After this is comes FRAME_CHAIN() but I think that needs more careful consideration.

Andrew

>How-To-Repeat:

>Fix:

>Release-Note:
>Audit-Trail:
>Unformatted:


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]