From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 31593 invoked by alias); 14 Jan 2002 10:18:37 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 31561 invoked from network); 14 Jan 2002 10:18:36 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO fw-cam.cambridge.arm.com) (193.131.176.3) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 14 Jan 2002 10:18:36 -0000 Received: by fw-cam.cambridge.arm.com; id KAA04531; Mon, 14 Jan 2002 10:18:35 GMT Received: from unknown(172.16.1.2) by fw-cam.cambridge.arm.com via smap (V5.5) id xma004340; Mon, 14 Jan 02 10:18:05 GMT Received: from cam-mail2.cambridge.arm.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cam-admin0.cambridge.arm.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA03154; Mon, 14 Jan 2002 10:18:05 GMT Received: from sun18.cambridge.arm.com (sun18.cambridge.arm.com [172.16.2.18]) by cam-mail2.cambridge.arm.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA21380; Mon, 14 Jan 2002 10:18:04 GMT Message-Id: <200201141018.KAA21380@cam-mail2.cambridge.arm.com> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.0.2 2/24/98 To: Kevin Buettner cc: Richard.Earnshaw@arm.com, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Reply-To: Richard.Earnshaw@arm.com Organization: ARM Ltd. X-Telephone: +44 1223 400569 (direct+voicemail), +44 1223 400400 (switchbd) X-Fax: +44 1223 400410 X-Address: ARM Ltd., 110 Fulbourn Road, Cherry Hinton, Cambridge CB1 9NJ. X-Url: http://www.arm.com/ Subject: Re: [PATCH] ARM: Eliminate EXTRA_FRAME_INFO & FRAME_FIND_SAVED_REGS In-reply-to: Your message of "Sun, 13 Jan 2002 10:24:26 MST." <1020113172426.ZM25643@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 02:18:00 -0000 From: Richard Earnshaw X-SW-Source: 2002-01/txt/msg00385.txt.bz2 > > 1) You don't seem to initialize the pointer fields in the static frame > > structure "prologue_cache". > > My patch does this allocation in _initialize_arm_tdep() whereas yours > does it in check_prologue_cache() and save_prologue_cache(). > Argh! I even looked for this and couldn't find it :-( I suspect because patch hasn't set the function signature correctly for the hunk.... @@ -2209,6 +2225,10 @@ The valid values are:\n"); add_com ("othernames", class_obscure, arm_othernames, "Switch to the next set of register names."); + + /* Allocate extra_info and saved_regs fields in the prologue cache. */ > > 2) Similarly you don't seem to be allocating the saved_regs for the > > caller_fi frame (arm_frame_chain). You do, however, allocate the > > extra_info. > > 3) You have a cleanup for the extra_info allocated above, which I hadn't > > thought about. I think one is also needed for the saved_regs. > > Are you sure? Here are what I believe to be the relevant lines from > the arm_frame_chain hunk: > > + caller_fi.saved_regs = (CORE_ADDR *) xcalloc (1, SIZEOF_FRAME_SAVED_REGS); > + old_chain = make_cleanup (xfree, caller_fi.saved_regs); > + caller_fi.extra_info = xcalloc (1, sizeof (struct frame_extra_info)); > + make_cleanup (xfree, caller_fi.extra_info); > > saved_regs is being allocated and a cleanup is being created. Were you > perhaps refering to some other hunk? Doh! right again. OK. I withdraw my version in favour of yours. All we need to do now is get someone to approve it. R.