From: Keith Owens <kaos@ocs.com.au>
To: "David S. Miller" <davem@redhat.com>
Cc: ak@muc.de, linas@austin.ibm.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: KDB in the mainstream 2.4.x kernels? 
In-reply-to: Your message of "Sun, 20 Jul 2003 06:31:37 MST."
             <20030720063137.3b0f2e14.davem@redhat.com> 
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2003 08:27:19 +1000
Message-ID: <7283.1058740039@ocs3.intra.ocs.com.au>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 821
Lines: 21

On Sun, 20 Jul 2003 06:31:37 -0700, 
"David S. Miller" <davem@redhat.com> wrote:
>On Sun, 20 Jul 2003 22:55:18 +1000
>Keith Owens <kaos@ocs.com.au> wrote:
>
>> i386 provides no unwind data
>
>We could tell gcc to emit dwarf2 unwind tables on x86 for debugging
>kernel builds.

C code is not really an issue.  Most of the unwind complexity is
handling the special case asm code, interrupt handlers, out of line
lock contention paths, anything in entry.S.  Much of the IA64 asm code
has explicit unwind directives in the asm code, i386 asm would need
equivalent kernel changes.

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/