This is the mail archive of the gdb-patches@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: [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


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