X-Recipient:	archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com
X-Spam-Check-By:	sourceware.org
Date:	Thu, 8 Oct 2009 17:23:11 -0400
From:	Christopher Faylor <cgf-use-the-mailinglist-please AT cygwin DOT com>
To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject:	Re: gdb, insight, and tcltk
Message-ID:	<20091008212311.GA2068@ednor.casa.cgf.cx>
Reply-To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
References:	<4ACD0C50 DOT 2010902 AT cwilson DOT fastmail DOT fm> <4ACE3545 DOT 7070904 AT cwilson DOT fastmail DOT fm>
MIME-Version:	1.0
In-Reply-To:	<4ACE3545.7070904@cwilson.fastmail.fm>
User-Agent:	Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14)
Mailing-List:	contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Id:	<cygwin.cygwin.com>
List-Unsubscribe:	<mailto:cygwin-unsubscribe-archive-cygwin=delorie DOT com AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Subscribe:	<mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive:	<http://sourceware.org/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post:	<mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help:	<mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender:	cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To:	mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com

On Thu, Oct 08, 2009 at 02:53:57PM -0400, Charles Wilson wrote:
>The existing cygwin gdb/insight 6.8-2 package has the following change:
>
>2007-11-30  Pedro Alves  <...>
>
>	* i386-tdep.c (struct i386_frame_cache): Rename saved_sp to
>	prev_frame_sp.  Add saved_sp_regnum field.
>	(i386_alloc_frame_cache): Update.
>	(i386_analyze_stack_align): Record which register holds %esp in
>	saved_sp_regnum.
>	(i386_analyze_register_saves): Move higher on the file.
>	(i386_analyze_frame_setup): Account for register saves before stack
>	adjustment.
>	(i386_frame_cache): If possible, prefer reading the register that holds
>	the previous stack pointer from the stack .
>	(i386_frame_prev_register): Update.
>	(i386_frame_args_address): New.
>	(i386_frame_base): Set i386_frame_args_address as args method.
>
>(patch vs. "regular" gdb-6.8 attached).  However, I *think* that given this:
>
>http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-cvs/2008-08/msg00053.html
>
>Discussion here:
>http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2008-07/msg00575.html
>http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2008-08/msg00141.html
>
>that Pedro's change is now unnecessary (it certainly needs a lot of TLC
>to apply to 7.0, in any case).  Also: gdb/insight built without this
>change seem to work ok.
>
>Any thoughts?

I'm sorry.  I haven't been giving this my full attention since I have a
working version of gdb and insight and thought you were asking insight
questions.

I'm wondering if it would just be best for me to continue in this vein.
It probably won't be worthwhile to be splitting responsibilities
because, frankly, I REALLY don't want to be debugging your end of things
along with my own.  This probably sounds mean but I don't mean it to be.
I just don't want to have to devote double the amount of brain power to
figuring out my own gdb issues along with yours and then coordinating
with you every time I find a problem.

cgf

--
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple

- Raw text -