This is the mail archive of the
gdb-prs@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the GDB project.
gdb/736: Add per frame frame_saved_pc()
- From: ac131313 at redhat dot com
- To: gdb-gnats at sources dot redhat dot com
- Date: 27 Sep 2002 17:43:06 -0000
- Subject: gdb/736: Add per frame frame_saved_pc()
- Reply-to: ac131313 at redhat dot com
>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: