This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [PATCH v3] Windows x64 SEH unwinder
- 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>, Roland Schwingel <roland dot schwingel at onevision dot de>
- Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2013 16:26:33 +0100
- Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] Windows x64 SEH unwinder
- 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> <6F12353E-D32C-40F0-87BF-AA77FC15BE03 at adacore dot com>
On 08/22/2013 10:33 AM, Tristan Gingold wrote:
>
> after discussion with Roland Schwingel, I have found that the patch
> doesn't handle well dwarf3 DW_OP_call_frame_cfa, because the SEH
> unwinder is before the dwarf2 one.
Can you clarify this a little better for the archives?
So that mean that for binaries built before that gcc fix,
the SEH unwinder won't kick in at all, right? Then,
how come this fixes Roland's age old issue, and improves
unwinding for him?
In the previous versions, there was talk about needing
finer ordering of the unwinders in order to support both
old and new binaries. What changed? Why is this okay
now?
--
Pedro Alves