This is the mail archive of the gdb@sourceware.org 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: Notes on a frame_unwind_address_in_block problem


Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org> writes:

> On Fri, Aug 18, 2006 at 05:07:47PM +0200, Andreas Jaeger wrote:
>> Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org> writes:
>> 
>> > [...]
>> > Good enough for me.  Andreas, in that case, is the patch in
>> > http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb/2006-07/msg00131.html OK?
>> 
>> Why are you using your own cf macros?  We have e.g. CFI_STARTPROC (see
>> sysdeps/generic/sysdep.h) and those should be used,
>
> I wrote earlier:
>
>> But, FYI, you can't actually write the unwind tables for these using
>> .cfi_* directives.  I tried.  I'd need at least three new directives
>> to do it sanely (for uleb128 escapes, sleb128 escapes, and adding the
>> "S" augmentation).  So I did it by hand, basically copied from the
>> i386 vDSO, but simpler since we don't need any pushes or pops.
>
> Even if I assume a brand new binutils which supports the "S"
> augmentation, I would still need to hand-expand uleb128 and sleb128.
> I thought there was another reason beyond that one too, but now I
> can't remember it.  I could try again (I did this but didn't save the
> patch).  But I really don't like having to assume the "S" support
> is present and generating bogus unwind info if it isn't.
>
> I suppose I could simply omit the unwind info if it isn't.  Want
> me to try that?

Ah I see.  Ulrich, Roland, what do you suggest here?

Andreas
-- 
 Andreas Jaeger, aj@suse.de, http://www.suse.de/~aj/
  SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany
   GPG fingerprint = 93A3 365E CE47 B889 DF7F  FED1 389A 563C C272 A126

Attachment: pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature


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