From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: n0ano@indstorage.com Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2002 22:35:37 +0000 Subject: Re: [Linux-ia64] unw_init_frame_info() and activation records Message-Id: List-Id: References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org All- Just a friendly note from the mailing list administrator. I let this post go through but this is probably something that should have been put up on an `ftp' server somewhere with a note about it's existence sent to the list. I don't want to put hard size limits on anyone but we all should use common sense and use `ftp' servers where appropriate. Tnx. On Tue, Apr 16, 2002 at 02:55:21PM -0700, Piet/Pete Delaney wrote: > Hi Keith: > > Our linux lcrash code support for stack frames needs improvement, I'm > looking around for code to pinch and was wondering about the kdb code. > > The kdb code at least seems to support the NEW_UNWIND code by using > unw_init_frame_info(). You code mentions that it should be using activation > records and I was wondering what that's all about. > > I've been reading Davie Mosberger chapter on Stack Unwinding and I'll check the > kernel code for perspectives on the code. I suspect that the gdb unwind code > and the HP-IPF-unwind library (see attached) are likely an overkill and only > needed for C++. > > Perhaps you could take a few minutes and provide a few pointers on how > to save time in adding unwind support. > > -piet > > > -- Don Dugger "Censeo Toto nos in Kansa esse decisse." - D. Gale n0ano@indstorage.com Ph: 303/652-0870x117