RE: Question: Is Dwarf CFI support required for new target?

["Breazeal, Don" <Don_Breazeal at mentor dot com>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Simon Marchi [mailto:simon.marchi@polymtl.ca]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2018 11:49 AM
> To: Breazeal, Don <Don_Breazeal@mentor.com>
> Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org
> Subject: Re: Question: Is Dwarf CFI support required for new target?
> 
> On 2018-05-29 12:14, Don Breazeal wrote:
> > Hi,
> > I have a question about the requirements for GDB port to a new target:
> > is support for Dwarf Call Frame Information required for acceptance,
> > or is prologue analysis sufficient?
> > Thanks
> > --Don
> 
> Hi Don,
> 
> Can you provide more context?  I can interpret your question in two
> ways:
> 
> - Your producer does not produce CFI, so you would be forced to always
> use prologue analysis for unwinding.  In that case, I guess it's fine,
> GDB should do its best with the information at its disposal.
> - Your producer produces CFI but GDB for your architecture won't use it.
>   In that case, I would ask why don't you use it.  It's generally more
> reliable and less hair-pulling than prologue analysis.
> 
> Simon

Hi Simon,
My scenario is currently a little less concrete than those you describe, but this feedback is helpful.
Thanks
--Don