Re: [patch/hppa/rfa] unwind fix for functions with no debug info

[Andrew Cagney <cagney at gnu dot org>]

Randolph Chung wrote:
> > Ok for 6.3 and mainline with a comment/change log tweak:
> >
> > The convention is for the ChangeLog to record what was changed while the 
> > code records why it was changed.
>
>
> will do. thanks.
>
> I'm still looking at another aspect of this problem:
>
> For example, in this backtrace:
> (gdb) bt
> #0  0x406510a8 in Tcl_Finalize () from /usr/lib/libtcl8.4.so.0
> #1  0x40650de0 in Tcl_Exit () from /usr/lib/libtcl8.4.so.0
> #2  0x40131224 in exp_new_i_simple () from /usr/lib/libexpect5.42.so.1
> #3  0x406273b8 in TclInvokeStringCommand () from /usr/lib/libtcl8.4.so.0
> #4  0x40628730 in TclEvalObjvInternal () from /usr/lib/libtcl8.4.so.0
> #5  0x406293e8 in Tcl_EvalEx () from /usr/lib/libtcl8.4.so.0
> #6  0x406297bc in Tcl_Eval () from /usr/lib/libtcl8.4.so.0
> #7  0x00010bc0 in main ()
>
> at frame #2, 0x40131224 is not actually in exp_new_i_simple, but in
> another function with no recorded name. this backtrace is confusing;
> possibly we should show "#2  0x40131224 in ??? from ..." instead?
>
> thoughts?

First check frame_unwind_address_in_block, perhaphs the "pc" is past the 
end of the "???" function and into exp_new_i_simple?

Beyond that though things get messy.  The symbol table would need to 
fudge up a "???" symbol for that non-recorded function - something we're 
not yet in a position to do.

Andrew