From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 1081 invoked by alias); 1 Aug 2008 18:46:13 -0000 Received: (qmail 1063 invoked by uid 22791); 1 Aug 2008 18:46:12 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from igw3.br.ibm.com (HELO igw3.br.ibm.com) (32.104.18.26) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Fri, 01 Aug 2008 18:45:51 +0000 Received: from mailhub3.br.ibm.com (unknown [9.18.232.110]) by igw3.br.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 22AED390203 for ; Fri, 1 Aug 2008 15:26:42 -0300 (BRST) Received: from d24av01.br.ibm.com (d24av01.br.ibm.com [9.18.232.46]) by mailhub3.br.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v8.7) with ESMTP id m71IjheZ2142416 for ; Fri, 1 Aug 2008 15:45:43 -0300 Received: from d24av01.br.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d24av01.br.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.13.3) with ESMTP id m71Ijb49024443 for ; Fri, 1 Aug 2008 15:45:37 -0300 Received: from [9.18.200.131] ([9.18.200.131]) by d24av01.br.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m71IjaBB023698 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 1 Aug 2008 15:45:37 -0300 Subject: Re: [RFC] PPC: Skip call to __eabi in main() From: Luis Machado Reply-To: luisgpm@linux.vnet.ibm.com To: Kevin Buettner Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org In-Reply-To: <20080728172221.3dc3764e@mesquite.lan> References: <20080721155343.404977d3@mesquite.lan> <1216701867.31797.26.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20080722181252.03d9ce94@mesquite.lan> <20080728172221.3dc3764e@mesquite.lan> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Fri, 01 Aug 2008 18:46:00 -0000 Message-Id: <1217616315.29334.44.camel@gargoyle> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.12.1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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: 2008-08/txt/msg00014.txt.bz2 Hi Kevin, Sorry it took a while to reply. On Mon, 2008-07-28 at 17:22 -0700, Kevin Buettner wrote: > +#define BL_MASK 0xfc000001 We have a very similar mask used for displaced stepping called BRANCH_MASK (0xfc000000). It doesn't care about the LK bit though, its purpose is just to check for a generic branch instruction. Maybe we should rename BL_MASK to something else incorporating the notion that we expect a LK bit? Or maybe doing the check for the LK bit manually in the code and using BL_MASK as is. > +#define BL_INSTRUCTION 0x48000001 Similarly, we also have B_INSN (0x48000000), lacking the LK bit. > +#define BL_DISPLACEMENT_MASK 0x03fffffc Should we make the naming more generic (B_LI_MASK maybe?) as the displacement field is common to a variety of I-form branch instructions? Just a suggestion, doesn't need to change if you don't feel it clarifies things. Regards, Luis