From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list linux-mips); Fri, 26 Feb 2010 21:50:27 +0100 (CET) Received: from mail.codesourcery.com ([38.113.113.100]:34196 "EHLO mail.codesourcery.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by eddie.linux-mips.org with ESMTP id S1492067Ab0BZUuX (ORCPT ); Fri, 26 Feb 2010 21:50:23 +0100 Received: (qmail 10627 invoked from network); 26 Feb 2010 20:50:20 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO caradoc.them.org) (dan@127.0.0.2) by mail.codesourcery.com with ESMTPA; 26 Feb 2010 20:50:20 -0000 Date: Fri, 26 Feb 2010 15:50:17 -0500 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: David Daney Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org, Joel Brobecker , "Pinski, Andrew" , Ralf Baechle , linux-mips Subject: Re: [PATCH] Make mips-linux signal frame unwinding more robust. Message-ID: <20100226205016.GB2630@caradoc.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: David Daney , gdb-patches@sourceware.org, Joel Brobecker , "Pinski, Andrew" , Ralf Baechle , linux-mips References: <4B82CEC4.2010607@caviumnetworks.com> <20100225174739.GA2851@adacore.com> <4B86C5EB.6090303@caviumnetworks.com> <4B881151.9070300@caviumnetworks.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4B881151.9070300@caviumnetworks.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Return-Path: X-Envelope-To: <"|/home/ecartis/ecartis -s linux-mips"> (uid 0) X-Orcpt: rfc822;linux-mips@linux-mips.org Original-Recipient: rfc822;linux-mips@linux-mips.org X-archive-position: 26066 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org Errors-to: linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org X-original-sender: dan@codesourcery.com Precedence: bulk X-list: linux-mips On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 10:22:09AM -0800, David Daney wrote: > The current signal frame unwinding code in mips-linux-tdep.c assumes > a constant offset from the signal return trampoline to the signal > frame. The assumption does not hold for all kernels. Specifically > those that have to be compiled with ICACHE_REFILLS_WORKAROUND_WAR > set (SGI O2 for example). In the near future, it is likely that the > assumption will cease to hold universally, as we are attempting to > move the signal return trampoline off the stack entirely. It's funny, I thought I'd already taught GDB about the WAR workaround, but there's no hint of it. Your patch looks good to me. > OK to commit? > > How about on the 7.1 branch? OK both. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery