[gdb/tdep] Don't use i386 unwinder for amd64
For i386 we have these unwinders:
...
$ gdb -q -batch -ex "set arch i386" -ex "maint info frame-unwinders"
The target architecture is set to "i386".
dummy DUMMY_FRAME
dwarf2 tailcall TAILCALL_FRAME
inline INLINE_FRAME
i386 epilogue NORMAL_FRAME
dwarf2 NORMAL_FRAME
dwarf2 signal SIGTRAMP_FRAME
i386 stack tramp NORMAL_FRAME
i386 sigtramp SIGTRAMP_FRAME
i386 prologue NORMAL_FRAME
...
and for amd64:
...
$ gdb -q -batch -ex "set arch i386:x86-64" -ex "maint info frame-unwinders"
The target architecture is set to "i386:x86-64".
dummy DUMMY_FRAME
dwarf2 tailcall TAILCALL_FRAME
inline INLINE_FRAME
python NORMAL_FRAME
amd64 epilogue NORMAL_FRAME
i386 epilogue NORMAL_FRAME
dwarf2 NORMAL_FRAME
dwarf2 signal SIGTRAMP_FRAME
amd64 sigtramp SIGTRAMP_FRAME
amd64 prologue NORMAL_FRAME
i386 stack tramp NORMAL_FRAME
i386 sigtramp SIGTRAMP_FRAME
i386 prologue NORMAL_FRAME
...
ISTM me there's no reason for the i386 unwinders to be there for amd64.
Furthermore, there's a generic need to play around with enabling and disabling
unwinders, see PR8434. Currently, that's only available for both the dwarf2
unwinders at once using "maint set dwarf unwinders on/off".
If I manually disable the "amd64 epilogue" unwinder, the "i386 epilogue"
unwinder becomes active and gives the wrong answer, while I'm actually
interested in the result of the dwarf2 unwinder. Of course I can also
manually disable the "i386 epilogue", but I take the fact that I have to do
that as evidence that on amd64, the "i386 epilogue" is not only unnecessary,
but in the way.
Fix this by only adding the i386 unwinders if
"info.bfd_arch_info->bits_per_word == 32".
Note that the x32 abi (x86_64/-mx32):
- has the same unwinder list as amd64 (x86_64/-m64) before this commit,
- has info.bfd_arch_info->bits_per_word == 64, the same as amd64, and
consequently,
- has the same unwinder list as amd64 after this commit.
Tested on x86_64-linux, -m64 and -m32. Not tested with -mx32.
Reviewed-By: John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org>
PR tdep/30102
Bug: https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30102