From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Elena Zannoni To: Andrew Cagney Cc: Elena Zannoni , gdb-patches@sourceware.cygnus.com, cfg@cygnus.com, jimb@cygnus.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] Cleanup some more section_addr_info structs Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2000 07:13:00 -0000 Message-id: <14592.25097.918179.383146@kwikemart.cygnus.com> References: <14591.20957.40807.102577@kwikemart.cygnus.com> <38FFC38B.552164F6@cygnus.com> X-SW-Source: 2000-04/msg00421.html 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 To: Elena Zannoni 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 > + > + * gdb-stabs.h (SECT_OFF_MAX): Increase to 40. > + > 2000-04-20 Scott Bambrough > > * 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 To: Andrew Cagney 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 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