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: Tristan Gingold <gingold at adacore dot com>
- To: Pedro Alves <palves at redhat dot com>
- Cc: "gdb-patches at sourceware dot org ml" <gdb-patches at sourceware dot org>, Joel Brobecker <brobecker at adacore dot com>
- Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2013 15:59:29 +0200
- 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> <51F29440 dot 3030808 at redhat dot com>
On Jul 26, 2013, at 5:22 PM, Pedro Alves <palves@redhat.com> wrote:
> 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. :-)
I'd simply vote for not supporting binaries built with old versions of gcc.
If a user complain, we can either add a command to disable the SEH unwinder,
or (and I prefer that option) simply say: sorry, but your binary is not
compliant with the x64 ABI.
> Otherwise I have no further comments. It looks good to me.
Ok, will commit it then (with the NEWS hunk).
Tristan.