From: "Carl E. Love" <cel@us.ibm.com>
To: Ulrich Weigand <uweigand@de.ibm.com>
Cc: Luis Machado <lgustavo@codesourcery.com>,
Pedro Alves <palves@redhat.com>,
Edjunior Barbosa Machado <emachado@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
gdb-patches@sourceware.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix for gdb.base/pc-fp.exp.
Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2016 15:15:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1472051715.4102.57.camel@us.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20160823163023.AAA2B5BCB@oc7340732750.ibm.com>
On Tue, 2016-08-23 at 18:30 +0200, Ulrich Weigand wrote:
> Carl Love wrote:
>
> > That said, the code "set_gdbarch_deprecated_fp_regnum
> > (gdbarch, PPC_R0_REGNUM + 1);" sets up register r1 as the frame pointer.
> > Register r1 is no longer used to hold the frame pointer on Power. By
> > removing the fp definition for Power in GDB, it causes GDB to fall back
> > to the call get_frame_base_address (frame) which returns the correct value
> > depending on the specific senario but most of the time is the DWARF
> > canonical frame address.
>
> That's true. In fact, the one place that really cares about the value
> returned via $fp is varobj.c:find_frame_addr_in_frame_chain, since you're
> supposed to use the value of $fp to identify a frame for MI routines.
> And there we explicitly assume that this value matches the value returned
> by get_frame_base_address.
>
> > 2016-08-22 Carl Love <cel@us.ibm.com>
> >
> > * rs6000-tdep.c (rs6000_gdbarch_init): Remove deprecated call set_gdbarch_deprecated_fp_regnum()
> > from Power architecture initialization function.
>
> Please watch the 80-char line length limit, which holds for the ChangeLog
> as well. In fact, the text can be shortened anyway: "deprecated" is
> redundant (included in the function name), and likewise is "from Power
> architecture initialization function" (you already specified which
> function --rs6000_gdbarch_init-- you're modifying). I'd suggest:
>
> * rs6000-tdep.c (rs6000_gdbarch_init): Remove call to
> set_gdbarch_deprecated_fp_regnum.
>
> Patch is OK.
>
> Thanks,
> Ulrich
>
Ulrich, Luis, Pedro:
I haven't heard any additional discussion on this patch in the last 24
hours or so. I believe at this point everyone's questions/concerns have
been addressed. I have pushed the patch. I did fix the line length
issue on the ChangeLog entry and updated the dates. Thanks for the
input and help with this patch.
https://sourceware.org/git/gitweb.cgi?p=binutils-gdb.git;a=commit;h=bdd78711b4c1ae26dbc8c2a64f28abec3486ae6c
Carl Love
prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-08-24 15:15 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-08-22 21:16 Carl E. Love
2016-08-22 23:17 ` Pedro Alves
2016-08-23 16:17 ` Carl E. Love
2016-08-23 16:26 ` Luis Machado
2016-08-23 17:06 ` Ulrich Weigand
2016-08-23 17:19 ` Luis Machado
2016-08-23 16:30 ` Ulrich Weigand
2016-08-24 15:15 ` Carl E. Love [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1472051715.4102.57.camel@us.ibm.com \
--to=cel@us.ibm.com \
--cc=emachado@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=gdb-patches@sourceware.org \
--cc=lgustavo@codesourcery.com \
--cc=palves@redhat.com \
--cc=uweigand@de.ibm.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox