This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [RFA] Windows x64 SEH unwinder (v2)
- From: Pedro Alves <palves at redhat dot com>
- To: Tristan Gingold <gingold at adacore dot com>
- Cc: "gdb-patches at sourceware dot org ml" <gdb-patches at sourceware dot org>, Joel Brobecker <brobecker at adacore dot com>
- Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2013 16:22:40 +0100
- Subject: Re: [RFA] Windows x64 SEH unwinder (v2)
- References: <1357728781-15073-1-git-send-email-brobecker at adacore dot com> <1357728781-15073-3-git-send-email-brobecker at adacore dot com> <50ED9221 dot 1050504 at redhat dot com> <9E84DF2D-7AF8-4AA1-A5DF-171EF189A6E7 at adacore dot com> <50EDA48E dot 2030406 at redhat dot com> <66611BA9-4536-42B2-A65C-4EA5DA219E22 at adacore dot com> <50EEEB3C dot 9050202 at redhat dot com> <5BE11EDB-7832-4489-8CB1-6382F5D1D34E at adacore dot com>
On 07/08/2013 11:55 AM, Tristan Gingold wrote:
> Hello,
>
> this is the second version of the patch we submitted in January.
> I have rewritten amd64_windows_frame_decode_epilogue according to the
> very serious review and comments from Pedro.
Thanks!
(That was here, for reference:
http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2013-01/msg00165.html
I had to go back and read it again, I had already swapped out
all my SEH knowledge :-) )
What's the plan for debugging binaries with dwarf instead of SEH?
That'd be binaries built with gcc 4.6, IIUC.
There was the fallback idea of providing a knob to disable the
unwinder. Is that no longer necessary? Did you guys manage to
confirm what happens with those binaries? Or will we take the wait
until someone complains the missing support approach? If the latter,
than I think NEWS should mention we no longer support such binaries.
Now that I mention that, I notice the NEWS hunk is mentioned in the
ChangeLog, but it's actually missing from the patch. :-)
Otherwise I have no further comments. It looks good to me.
--
Pedro Alves