Re: [PATCH] Cleanup some more section_addr_info structs

[Elena Zannoni <ezannoni@cygnus.com>]

Andrew Cagney writes:
 > Elena Zannoni wrote:
 > > 
 > > [Who is the som maintainer? Do we have one?]
 > > 
 > > I forgot to get rid of these uses of the special field
 > > text_addr of section_addr_info:
 > 
 > Jim being the symtab maintainer is the nearest thing we've got (Hi
 > Jim!).
 > 
 > If he can't see anything wrong with it (but there is no need to bend
 > over backwards to ensure that is the case) then it should go in.  Are
 > you able to check that the target that uses ``som*.[hc]'' has no
 > regressions?
 > 
 > 	Andrew

Yes I built and testsed on an hpux machine. I am going to check this
in then.

Elena
From ezannoni@cygnus.com Fri Apr 21 07:34:00 2000
From: Elena Zannoni <ezannoni@cygnus.com>
To: Elena Zannoni <ezannoni@cygnus.com>
Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.cygnus.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Increase SECT_OFF_MAX
Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2000 07:34:00 -0000
Message-id: <14592.26327.214552.215966@kwikemart.cygnus.com>
References: <14591.31056.47840.665560@kwikemart.cygnus.com>
X-SW-Source: 2000-04/msg00422.html
Content-length: 1857

FYI, I commited this one.

Elena

Elena Zannoni writes:
 > 
 > This patch increases the value of SECT_OFF_MAX to 40, to make it the
 > same as MAX_SECTIONS.
 > 
 > See:
 > 
 > http://sourceware.cygnus.com/ml/gdb/2000-04/msg00111.html
 > 
 > Elena
 > 
 > Index: ChangeLog
 > ===================================================================
 > RCS file: /cvs/src/src/gdb/ChangeLog,v
 > retrieving revision 1.293
 > diff -c -r1.293 ChangeLog
 > *** ChangeLog   2000/04/20 21:13:19     1.293
 > --- ChangeLog   2000/04/20 21:36:26
 > ***************
 > *** 1,3 ****
 > --- 1,7 ----
 > + 2000-04-20  Elena Zannoni <ezannoni@cygnus.com>
 > + 
 > +         * gdb-stabs.h (SECT_OFF_MAX): Increase to 40.
 > + 
 >   2000-04-20  Scott Bambrough <scottb@netwinder.org>
 >   
 >         * arm-linux-nat.c (PIDGET, TIDGET): New.
 > Index: gdb-stabs.h
 > ===================================================================
 > RCS file: /cvs/src/src/gdb/gdb-stabs.h,v
 > retrieving revision 1.1.1.3
 > diff -c -r1.1.1.3 gdb-stabs.h
 > *** gdb-stabs.h 1999/10/05 23:08:13     1.1.1.3
 > --- gdb-stabs.h 2000/04/20 21:36:26
 > ***************
 > *** 37,43 ****
 >   #define       SECT_OFF_DATA   1
 >   #define       SECT_OFF_BSS    2
 >   #define       SECT_OFF_RODATA 3
 > ! #define       SECT_OFF_MAX    16      /* Count of possible values */
 >   
 >   /* The stab_section_info chain remembers info from the ELF symbol table,
 >      while psymtabs are being built for the other symbol tables in the 
 > --- 37,43 ----
 >   #define       SECT_OFF_DATA   1
 >   #define       SECT_OFF_BSS    2
 >   #define       SECT_OFF_RODATA 3
 > ! #define       SECT_OFF_MAX    40      /* Count of possible values */
 >   
 >   /* The stab_section_info chain remembers info from the ELF symbol table,
 >      while psymtabs are being built for the other symbol tables in the 
 > 
From cgf@cygnus.com Fri Apr 21 07:49:00 2000
From: Chris Faylor <cgf@cygnus.com>
To: Andrew Cagney <ac131313@cygnus.com>
Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.cygnus.com
Subject: Re: [RFA] SH prologue recognition update
Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2000 07:49:00 -0000
Message-id: <20000421102940.A7445@cygnus.com>
References: <20000420231327.A4674@cygnus.com> <38FFEE7F.7628FA60@cygnus.com>
X-SW-Source: 2000-04/msg00423.html
Content-length: 1259

On Fri, Apr 21, 2000 at 04:00:31PM +1000, Andrew Cagney wrote:
>Chris Faylor wrote:
>> 
>> The following changes were necessary to get sh-tdep.c working with the
>> Windows CE SH target.  They seem to accomodate the prologue found in
>> more recent version of gdb.  I've also added an additional defensive
>> check to sh_find_callers_reg.
>
>Is there a need for the (dreaded?) heuristic_fence_post in this code? 
>What is the chance of GDB just plowing through memory looking for the
>end of the prologue?

It's already bounded.  It should only look for 28 instructions or so.
This seems to be slightly more than the longest prologue I could produce
but it's probably not perfect.

>The other question is, does WinCE/SH GCC output the same prologe as for
>other SH targets such as sh-coff(?) and sh-elf?  Playing around with the
>prologue analysis code is hairy so I'm trying to figure out how much
>testing is practical.

AFAIK, yes.  I actually imported the latest sh/gcc code into the WinCE branch.
It looks pretty certain that the prologue may have changed and that my
code makes at least a slightly better stab at finding it.

However, once again (hangs head in shame), I could have run this through the
test suite but I didn't.  I'll try that now.

cgf
From assign@gnu.org Fri Apr 21 08:47:00 2000
From: assignments <assign@gnu.org>
To: gdb-patches@sourceware.cygnus.com
Subject: new assigns/disclaims
Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2000 08:47:00 -0000
Message-id: <200004211547.LAA30571@mescaline.gnu.org>
X-SW-Source: 2000-04/msg00424.html
Content-length: 1042

The following disclaimers and/or assignments concerning GDB
have recently been added to the file copyright.list here at the 
Free Software Foundation.  If you have any questions or corrections,
please send them to my general work address, 3diff@gnu.org.
                                     Thanks!
                                     Brian Youmans
                                     Assignments Clerk

ANY GDB Neurizon Pty. Ltd.      2000-03-22
Disclaims changes to free software by Steven Johnson, in the past and
for the next 10 years.

GDB     Steven Johnson  Australia 1970  2000-03-22
Assigns past and future changes.
sbjohnson@ozemail.com.au

GDB	Craig Farley Newell	Australia/Canada 1975	2000-03-12
Assigns past and future changes.
CraigN@ieee.org

ANY BINUTILS GCC GDB	savaJe technologies	2000-03-12
Disclaims changes to free software by Craig Farley Newell, in the past
and for the next 99 years.

GDB     Gaius Mulley    UK 1964 1999-09-06
Assigns changes (list with assignment; changes in bfd, gdb, opcodes).
gaius@glam.ac.uk