This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [PATCH] Re: Unwinding CFI gcc practice of assumed `same value' regs
On Wed, 13 Dec 2006 22:52:52 +0100, Mark Kettenis wrote:
...
> No, sorry, it is me who is confused. I didn't actually look at Jan's patch
> and assumed it did the the right thing of marking the return address as
> undefined.
Therefore what should the patch do? Currently `.cfi_undefined' looks as too
radical.
GDB may check for `PC == 0 && strcmp (name, "clone") == 0' (more reliably).
That `strcmp (name, "clone")' needs to be coded in more trustworthy way.
This "outermost" framework is already present in GDB but it would mean to add
besides `set backtrace past-main' and `set backtrace past-entry' also some `set
backtrace past-clone' and several more others in the future.
Thanks,
Jan