From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-patches-return-69043-listarch-gdb-patches=sources.redhat.com@sourceware.org>
Received: (qmail 17232 invoked by alias); 22 Dec 2009 15:28:53 -0000
Received: (qmail 17223 invoked by uid 22791); 22 Dec 2009 15:28:53 -0000
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.5 required=5.0 	tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_PASS
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from cam-admin0.cambridge.arm.com (HELO cam-admin0.cambridge.arm.com) (217.140.96.50)     by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Tue, 22 Dec 2009 15:28:46 +0000
Received: from cam-owa2.Emea.Arm.com (cam-owa2.emea.arm.com [10.1.105.18]) 	by cam-admin0.cambridge.arm.com (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id nBMFSgeI000129; 	Tue, 22 Dec 2009 15:28:42 GMT
Received: from [10.1.129.129] ([10.1.255.212]) by cam-owa2.Emea.Arm.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); 	 Tue, 22 Dec 2009 15:28:42 +0000
Subject: Re: [PING][PATCH] ARM/Linux: Unwind restart_syscall(2) frames
From: Richard Earnshaw <rearnsha@arm.com>
To: Michael Snyder <msnyder@vmware.com>
Cc: "Maciej W. Rozycki" <macro@codesourcery.com>,    "gdb-patches@sourceware.org" <gdb-patches@sourceware.org>
In-Reply-To: <4B2BD8CE.9010802@vmware.com>
References: <alpine.DEB.1.10.0912181410300.4720@tp.orcam.me.uk> 	 <4B2BD8CE.9010802@vmware.com>
Content-Type: text/plain
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 2009 15:28:00 -0000
Message-Id: <1261495721.26179.67.camel@e200601-lin.cambridge.arm.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-IsSubscribed: yes
Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gdb-patches.sourceware.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gdb-patches-subscribe@sourceware.org>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gdb-patches@sourceware.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org
X-SW-Source: 2009-12/txt/msg00341.txt.bz2


On Fri, 2009-12-18 at 11:32 -0800, Michael Snyder wrote:
> Maciej W. Rozycki wrote:
> > Hi,
> > 
> >  Would anyone please review this patch:
> > 
> > http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2009-08/msg00431.html
> > 
> >  Thanks,
> > 
> >   Maciej
> 
> Well, I don't see anything glaringly wrong with it...
> 
> Richard?
> 
> 

It's not code that I'm familiar with, however...

	svc	0x00900000
	ldr	pc, [sp], #12
then

+  trad_frame_set_reg_value (this_cache, ARM_SP_REGNUM, sp + 12);

So why is the stack pointer /incremented/ by 12 at this point (which
deallocates stack) rather than decremented to compensate for the
increment that will follow?  Also, shouldn't the stack allocation be a
multiple of 8 to fully conform to the ABI stack alignment constraints?

What about thumb support?

Finally, do you need different code for Big-endian and BE-8 modes?

R.