This is the mail archive of the gdb-patches@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]

Re: [rfa/6.0] Better handle unspecified CFI values


Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@mvista.com> writes:
> Yes - normally.  On S/390, stdcall, et cetera (anywhere where the hack
> would be wrong) it gets even worse.  We can only compute expressions
> describing a memory location where the register is saved, not computed
> values.  For stack pointers (and maybe frame pointers on some
> architectures?) this isn't good enough.

Not to pursue unimportant tangents, but why would the hack be wrong on
the S/390?  Its frames are normally FP-free, but aside from that,
what's unusual about it?


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