From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-patches-return-28229-listarch-gdb-patches=sources.redhat.com@sources.redhat.com>
Received: (qmail 21626 invoked by alias); 27 Oct 2003 19:01:36 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gdb-patches-subscribe@sources.redhat.com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com
Received: (qmail 21613 invoked from network); 27 Oct 2003 19:01:35 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO hub.ott.qnx.com) (209.226.137.76)
  by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 27 Oct 2003 19:01:35 -0000
Received: from smtp.ott.qnx.com (smtp.ott.qnx.com [10.0.2.158])
	by hub.ott.qnx.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA16331
	for <gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com>; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 13:56:23 -0500
Received: from catdog ([10.4.2.2]) by smtp.ott.qnx.com (8.8.8/8.6.12) with SMTP id NAA17788; Mon, 27 Oct 2003 13:48:18 -0500
Message-ID: <0b2801c39cbb$056701c0$0202040a@catdog>
From: "Kris Warkentin" <kewarken@qnx.com>
To: "Michael Elizabeth Chastain" <mec@shout.net>, <drow@mvista.com>,
        <gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com>
References: <200310241922.h9OJMb5T024347@duracef.shout.net>
Subject: Re: [patch] New testcase for PR:1291
Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2003 19:01:00 -0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165
X-SW-Source: 2003-10/txt/msg00790.txt.bz2

> > A) move it and make it generic.
> > B) leave it and write it in assembly.
>
> I like (B) better.  The backtrace code is all about specific
> assembly instructions.  So I'd like it better in the style of the i386
> prologue tests, with explicit assembly.
>
> Michael C

Okay so this bit of assembly adequately demonstrates the problem.  There is
a bit of an issue here though that perhaps some sh4 expert can clear up for
me.  If I run this and go "until sub2", it stops on sub2 and works fine.
If, however, I go "until sub1", followed by "until sub2", it stops a couple
instructions before sub2 and I have to 'si' into it.  I can modify the test
case to not bother checking sub1 (since we know it's okay anyway) but I'm
still puzzled as to why this is having the problem.

cheers,

Kris


void sub1 (void);
void sub2 (void);

main()
{
        sub1();
        sub2();
}

asm(".text\n"
    "    .align 5\n"
    "sub1:\n"
    "    mov.l  r14,@-r15\n"
    "    add    #-128,r15\n"
    "    add    #-128,r15\n"
    "    mov    r15,r14\n"
    "    mov.w  .STACK1,r7\n"
    "    add    r7,r14\n"
    "    mov    r14,r15\n"
    "    mov.l  @r15+,r14\n"
    "    rts\n"
    "    nop\n"
    "    .align 1\n"
    ".STACK1:\n"
    "    .short  256\n");

asm(".text\n"
    "    .align 5\n"
    "sub2:\n"
    "    mov.l  r14,@-r15\n"
    "    mov.w  .STACK2,r3\n"
    "    sub    r3,r15\n"
    "    mov    r15,r14\n"
    "    mov.w  .STACK2,r7\n"
    "    add    r7,r14\n"
    "    mov    r14,r15\n"
    "    mov.l  @r15+,r14\n"
    "    rts\n"
    "    nop\n"
    "    .align 1\n"
    ".STACK2:\n"
    "    .short  260\n");