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: frame_id question

From: Jim Blandy <jimb at red-bean dot com>
To: Vladimir Prus <ghost at cs dot msu dot su>, Jim Blandy <jimb at redhat dot com>, gdb at sources dot redhat dot com
Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2005 15:34:24 -0800
Subject: Re: frame_id question
References: <dkt7no$aan$1@sea.gmane.org> <vt28xvv5vqj.fsf@theseus.home.> <200511111335.18605.ghost@cs.msu.su> <20051113173205.GB1945@nevyn.them.org>

On 11/13/05, Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org> wrote:
> > > Some functions don't need any stack space at all.  Such a function can
> > > even call other functions if it moves the return address to a
> > > callee-saved register while doing so.
>
> I was going to reply with that example, but I couldn't convince myself
> it was possible.  It'll clobber the value previously in that
> callee-saved register.  However, I know there is a case like this - I
> just can't think of it at the moment.

You're right.  Now I'm not sure it's possible either.  (Setting aside
dummy frames created by GDB.)

References:
- frame_id question
  - From: Vladimir Prus
- Re: frame_id question
  - From: Jim Blandy
- Re: frame_id question
  - From: Vladimir Prus
- Re: frame_id question
  - From: Daniel Jacobowitz

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