From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 14379 invoked by alias); 23 Jan 2003 10:49:33 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 14372 invoked from network); 23 Jan 2003 10:49:32 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO d06lmsgate-6.uk.ibm.com) (194.196.100.252) by 172.16.49.205 with SMTP; 23 Jan 2003 10:49:32 -0000 Received: from d06relay02.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06relay02.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.166.84.148]) by d06lmsgate-6.uk.ibm.com (1.0.0) with ESMTP id KAA31356 for ; Thu, 23 Jan 2003 10:46:03 GMT Received: from fmtc804 (fmtc804.boeblingen.de.ibm.com [9.164.176.246]) by d06relay02.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.12.3/NCO/VER6.4) with SMTP id h0NAnUTY055096 for ; Thu, 23 Jan 2003 10:49:30 GMT From: Gerhard Tonn Organization: IBM Deutschland GmbH To: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [Patch] Fix ABI incompatibilities on s390x Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2003 10:49:00 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <03012312571000.14253@fmtc804> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-SW-Source: 2003-01/txt/msg00694.txt.bz2 "Gerhard Tonn" writes: >> I don't think that it is worthwhile to duplicate the functions. The only >> difference between s390 and s390x is really the REGISTER_SIZE. I will >> rework the patch so that this becomes more clear. I will also address the >> other issues. >Certainly, if two functions can be made identical by the appropriate >use of REGISTER_SIZE, then there's no reason to duplicate them. >However, I thought I had seen another sort of conditionality which is >definitely of the sort we are trying to avoid. >I'll watch for your new patches. Thanks again for your work. Please find below the revised patch. The number of floating point registers is another difference between s390 and s390x besides the register size. As soon as you have approved the patch we will start the copyright assignment . I will let you know any progress. 2003-01-23 Gerhard Tonn * s390-tdep.c (is_simple_arg): Substitute hardcoded register size by macro REGISTER_SIZE and consider s390x register size for structs. (pass_by_copy_ref): Likewise. (is_double_arg): Likewise. (s390_push_arguments): Substitute hardcoded register size by macro REGISTER_SIZE. Consider ABI when returning values of type struct. Substitute hardcoded number of floating point registers by macro S390_NUM_FP_PARAMETER_REGISTERS. Substitute hardcoded stack parameter alignment value by macro S390_STACK_PARAMETER_ALIGNMENT. Substitute hardcoded stack frame overhead value by macro S390_STACK_FRAME_OVERHEAD. --- s390-tdep.c.bak Tue Nov 26 11:49:54 2002 +++ s390-tdep.c Tue Nov 26 12:17:05 2002 @@ -94,7 +94,9 @@ #define S390X_SIGREGS_FP0_OFFSET (216) #define S390_UC_MCONTEXT_OFFSET (256) #define S390X_UC_MCONTEXT_OFFSET (344) -#define S390_STACK_FRAME_OVERHEAD (GDB_TARGET_IS_ESAME ? 160:96) +#define S390_STACK_FRAME_OVERHEAD 16*REGISTER_SIZE+32 +#define S390_STACK_PARAMETER_ALIGNMENT REGISTER_SIZE +#define S390_NUM_FP_PARAMETER_REGISTERS (GDB_TARGET_IS_ESAME ? 4:2) #define S390_SIGNAL_FRAMESIZE (GDB_TARGET_IS_ESAME ? 160:96) #define s390_NR_sigreturn 119 #define s390_NR_rt_sigreturn 173 @@ -1369,9 +1371,9 @@ /* This is almost a direct translation of the ABI's language, except that we have to exclude 8-byte structs; those are DOUBLE_ARGs. */ - return ((is_integer_like (type) && length <= 4) + return ((is_integer_like (type) && length <= REGISTER_SIZE) || is_pointer_like (type) - || (is_struct_like (type) && length != 8) + || (is_struct_like (type) && (GDB_TARGET_IS_ESAME || length != 8)) || (is_float_like (type) && length == 16)); } @@ -1384,7 +1386,8 @@ { unsigned length = TYPE_LENGTH (type); - return ((is_struct_like (type) && length != 1 && length != 2 && length != 4) + return ((is_struct_like (type) && length != 1 && length != 2 && length != 4 + && (!GDB_TARGET_IS_ESAME || length != 8)) || (is_float_like (type) && length == 16)); } @@ -1419,7 +1422,7 @@ return ((is_integer_like (type) || is_struct_like (type)) - && length == 8); + && !GDB_TARGET_IS_ESAME && length == 8); } @@ -1542,9 +1545,9 @@ sp = round_down (sp, alignment_of (type)); - /* SIMPLE_ARG values get extended to 32 bits. Assume every - argument is. */ - if (length < 4) length = 4; + /* SIMPLE_ARG values get extended to REGISTER_SIZE bytes. + Assume every argument is. */ + if (length < REGISTER_SIZE) length = REGISTER_SIZE; sp -= length; } } @@ -1565,13 +1568,17 @@ int gr = 2; CORE_ADDR starg = sp; + /* A struct is returned using general register 2 */ + if (struct_return) + gr++; + for (i = 0; i < nargs; i++) { struct value *arg = args[i]; struct type *type = VALUE_TYPE (arg); if (is_double_or_float (type) - && fr <= 2) + && fr <= S390_NUM_FP_PARAMETER_REGISTERS * 2 - 2) { /* When we store a single-precision value in an FP register, it occupies the leftmost bits. */ @@ -1598,7 +1605,7 @@ write_register_gen (S390_GP0_REGNUM + gr, VALUE_CONTENTS (arg)); write_register_gen (S390_GP0_REGNUM + gr + 1, - VALUE_CONTENTS (arg) + 4); + VALUE_CONTENTS (arg) + REGISTER_SIZE); gr += 2; } else @@ -1614,9 +1621,9 @@ if (is_simple_arg (type)) { - /* Simple args are always either extended to 32 bits, - or pointers. */ - starg = round_up (starg, 4); + /* Simple args are always extended to + REGISTER_SIZE bytes. */ + starg = round_up (starg, REGISTER_SIZE); /* Do we need to pass a pointer to our copy of this argument? */ @@ -1624,18 +1631,19 @@ write_memory_signed_integer (starg, pointer_size, copy_addr[i]); else - /* Simple args are always extended to 32 bits. */ - write_memory_signed_integer (starg, 4, + /* Simple args are always extended to + REGISTER_SIZE bytes. */ + write_memory_signed_integer (starg, REGISTER_SIZE, extend_simple_arg (arg)); - starg += 4; + starg += REGISTER_SIZE; } else { /* You'd think we should say: starg = round_up (starg, alignment_of (type)); Unfortunately, GCC seems to simply align the stack on - a four-byte boundary, even when passing doubles. */ - starg = round_up (starg, 4); + a four/eight-byte boundary, even when passing doubles. */ + starg = round_up (starg, S390_STACK_PARAMETER_ALIGNMENT); write_memory (starg, VALUE_CONTENTS (arg), length); starg += length; } @@ -1646,7 +1654,7 @@ /* Allocate the standard frame areas: the register save area, the word reserved for the compiler (which seems kind of meaningless), and the back chain pointer. */ - sp -= 96; + sp -= S390_STACK_FRAME_OVERHEAD; /* Write the back chain pointer into the first word of the stack frame. This will help us get backtraces from within functions -- Regards, Gerhard