From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 4738 invoked by alias); 29 Jun 2011 08:49:58 -0000 Received: (qmail 4728 invoked by uid 22791); 29 Jun 2011 08:49:57 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,MSGID_MULTIPLE_AT,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from service87.mimecast.com (HELO service87.mimecast.com) (94.185.240.25) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with SMTP; Wed, 29 Jun 2011 08:49:43 +0000 Received: from cam-owa1.Emea.Arm.com (fw-tnat.cambridge.arm.com [217.140.96.21]) by service87.mimecast.com; Wed, 29 Jun 2011 09:49:40 +0100 Received: from Terrysh02 ([10.1.255.212]) by cam-owa1.Emea.Arm.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.0); Wed, 29 Jun 2011 09:49:38 +0100 From: "Terry Guo" To: "'Yao Qi'" Cc: , References: <000901cc34bc$fd1aa6a0$f74ff3e0$@guo@arm.com> <000101cc35fb$8d45ff60$a7d1fe20$@guo@arm.com> <4E0AB9B3.8060104@codesourcery.com> <000501cc362a$2e7f9020$8b7eb060$@guo@arm.com> <4E0ADB87.20807@codesourcery.com> In-Reply-To: Subject: RE: [PATCH] Fix that different function breakpoints are set at same pc address (PR gdb/12703) Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2011 08:49:00 -0000 Message-ID: <000601cc3639$77e4a250$67ade6f0$@guo@arm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-MC-Unique: 111062909494006001 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2011-06/txt/msg00438.txt.bz2 Hi, First if you look at the generated binary code, I thought it is a valid cas= e. After performing the function test, it will fall into function bar which= is a normal function. At least my case can run correctly on QEMU. It is ve= ry likely for people to write program in assembly code like: main: b test test: movs r5, #10 bar: push....... ......... You cannot say this is a invalid program. If you have concern about attribu= te NAKED, I can rewrite it in assembly code. Second, we all know that current prologue analyzer cannot handle all cases.= My patch only intends to be a worthwhile supplement for cases that beyond = the prologue analyzer capability. Third, I also have strong interesting to enhance prologue analyze. I sugges= t we use another thread to discuss how to enhance prologue analyzer to hand= le all possible cases. And leave this one to discuss whether is it worthwhi= le to have my patch. BR, Terry