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] add 'rs6000_in_function_epilogue_p()' (Revised)

From: Jim Blandy <jimb at red-bean dot com>
To: Jim Blandy <jimb at red-bean dot com>, pgilliam at us dot ibm dot com, gdb-patches at sources dot redhat dot com
Date: Fri, 2 Dec 2005 13:44:48 -0800
Subject: Re: [PATCH] add 'rs6000_in_function_epilogue_p()' (Revised)
References: <200511301225.56802.pgilliam@us.ibm.com> <8f2776cb0512011707p120df411w3a685c453d4ec625@mail.gmail.com> <200512021120.22263.pgilliam@us.ibm.com> <8f2776cb0512021319x69cdb461xc92d9280313feefe@mail.gmail.com> <20051202212052.GA16980@nevyn.them.org>

On 12/2/05, Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org> wrote:
> We don't even use CFI for PowerPC, still, because of the debacle with
> incorrect register numbers recently fixed in GCC.

Oh!  That scotches that idea, then.  Never mind, Paul.

The "Right Fix" for that bug would be to make the unwinding more
reliable.  But pre-CFI we've never really been able to unwind very
well within epilogues.  Daniel had aesthetic concerns about the patch,
but it seems like the in_function_epilogue method is the only
practical fix, whatever qualities its actual definition might have.

References:
- Re: [PATCH] add 'rs6000_in_function_epilogue_p()'
  - From: Jim Blandy
- Re: [PATCH] add 'rs6000_in_function_epilogue_p()' (Revised)
  - From: Paul Gilliam
- Re: [PATCH] add 'rs6000_in_function_epilogue_p()' (Revised)
  - From: Jim Blandy
- Re: [PATCH] add 'rs6000_in_function_epilogue_p()' (Revised)
  - From: Daniel Jacobowitz

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