From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-patches-return-28246-listarch-gdb-patches=sources.redhat.com@sources.redhat.com>
Received: (qmail 23673 invoked by alias); 28 Oct 2003 16:02:04 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gdb-patches-subscribe@sources.redhat.com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com
Received: (qmail 23642 invoked from network); 28 Oct 2003 16:02:03 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO localhost.redhat.com) (207.219.125.105)
  by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 28 Oct 2003 16:02:03 -0000
Received: by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix, from userid 469)
	id 4CA861A4288; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 11:02:03 -0500 (EST)
From: Elena Zannoni <ezannoni@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <16286.37627.229387.242404@localhost.redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2003 16:02:00 -0000
To: "Kris Warkentin" <kewarken@qnx.com>
Cc: "Michael Elizabeth Chastain" <mec@shout.net>, <drow@mvista.com>,
	<gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [patch] New testcase for PR:1291
In-Reply-To: <0b2801c39cbb$056701c0$0202040a@catdog>
References: <200310241922.h9OJMb5T024347@duracef.shout.net>
	<0b2801c39cbb$056701c0$0202040a@catdog>
X-SW-Source: 2003-10/txt/msg00807.txt.bz2

Kris Warkentin writes:
 > > > A) move it and make it generic.
 > > > B) leave it and write it in assembly.
 > >
 > > I like (B) better.  The backtrace code is all about specific
 > > assembly instructions.  So I'd like it better in the style of the i386
 > > prologue tests, with explicit assembly.
 > >
 > > Michael C
 > 
 > Okay so this bit of assembly adequately demonstrates the problem.  There is
 > a bit of an issue here though that perhaps some sh4 expert can clear up for
 > me.  If I run this and go "until sub2", it stops on sub2 and works fine.
 > If, however, I go "until sub1", followed by "until sub2", it stops a couple
 > instructions before sub2 and I have to 'si' into it.  I can modify the test
 > case to not bother checking sub1 (since we know it's okay anyway) but I'm
 > still puzzled as to why this is having the problem.
 > 
 > cheers,
 > 
 > Kris
 > 

Ok.  Not sure why that happens. It defeinitely seems like a bug. File
a pr, and KFAIL it in the testsuite, with the pr number.

elena


 > 
 > void sub1 (void);
 > void sub2 (void);
 > 
 > main()
 > {
 >         sub1();
 >         sub2();
 > }
 > 
 > asm(".text\n"
 >     "    .align 5\n"
 >     "sub1:\n"
 >     "    mov.l  r14,@-r15\n"
 >     "    add    #-128,r15\n"
 >     "    add    #-128,r15\n"
 >     "    mov    r15,r14\n"
 >     "    mov.w  .STACK1,r7\n"
 >     "    add    r7,r14\n"
 >     "    mov    r14,r15\n"
 >     "    mov.l  @r15+,r14\n"
 >     "    rts\n"
 >     "    nop\n"
 >     "    .align 1\n"
 >     ".STACK1:\n"
 >     "    .short  256\n");
 > 
 > asm(".text\n"
 >     "    .align 5\n"
 >     "sub2:\n"
 >     "    mov.l  r14,@-r15\n"
 >     "    mov.w  .STACK2,r3\n"
 >     "    sub    r3,r15\n"
 >     "    mov    r15,r14\n"
 >     "    mov.w  .STACK2,r7\n"
 >     "    add    r7,r14\n"
 >     "    mov    r14,r15\n"
 >     "    mov.l  @r15+,r14\n"
 >     "    rts\n"
 >     "    nop\n"
 >     "    .align 1\n"
 >     ".STACK2:\n"
 >     "    .short  260\n");
 > 
 >