From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 14759 invoked by alias); 18 Nov 2010 13:27:52 -0000 Received: (qmail 14748 invoked by uid 22791); 18 Nov 2010 13:27:50 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD 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; Thu, 18 Nov 2010 13:27:45 +0000 Received: from cam-owa1.Emea.Arm.com (cam-owa1.emea.arm.com [10.1.255.62]) by cam-admin0.cambridge.arm.com (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id oAIDLsF9003938; Thu, 18 Nov 2010 13:21:54 GMT Received: from [10.1.67.34] ([10.1.255.212]) by cam-owa1.Emea.Arm.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.0); Thu, 18 Nov 2010 13:27:38 +0000 Subject: RE: [RFC] About arm-tdep.c arm_in_function_epilogue_p function From: Richard Earnshaw To: Pierre Muller Cc: "'Daniel Jacobowitz'" , "'Ulrich Weigand'" , gdb-patches@sourceware.org In-Reply-To: <000a01cb8710$bcda4a00$368ede00$@muller@ics-cnrs.unistra.fr> References: <002701cb83f6$30b394e0$921abea0$@muller@ics-cnrs.unistra.fr> <20101116000346.GN8573@caradoc.them.org> <000a01cb8710$bcda4a00$368ede00$@muller@ics-cnrs.unistra.fr> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2010 13:27:00 -0000 Message-Id: <1290086858.18751.21.camel@e102346-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: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2010-11/txt/msg00231.txt.bz2 On Thu, 2010-11-18 at 12:07 +0100, Pierre Muller wrote: > Hi, > > > On Sun, Nov 14, 2010 at 01:19:29PM +0100, Pierre Muller wrote: > > >>> Furthermore, found_return isn't used > > >>> anymore in that function. > > >>> Isn't the correct code > > >>> found_stack_adjust = 1; > > > I'm pretty sure you're right. I'm not set up at the moment to test > > patches on ARM, but if anyone reading this is, then I'd approve > > that change. > > I was able to compile and run the testsuite on an arm linux > machine, processor type armv7l. > Unfortunately, the testsuite seems to never trigger this instruction. > (Checked by adding some specific output if the code triggers, > not found in gdb.log after testsuite completion.) > So I think we should rather leave the decision to Ulrich, > as he seems much more involved in the arm target, no? Why don't you just post a patch? Then we can assess it as we would all other patches. The comments in the code at this point clearly don't match the code, so something certainly needs fixing. R.