From: "David S. Miller" <davem@redhat.com>
To: ac131313@cygnus.com
Cc: mec@shout.net, fnasser@redhat.com, cagney@cygnus.com,
gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix xfail Sparc pattern
Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2002 15:37:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20020418.152834.121227947.davem@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <3CBF48C9.30201@cygnus.com>
From: Andrew Cagney <ac131313@cygnus.com>
Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2002 18:29:29 -0400
David, note the e-mail below:
> AFAIK, generic dummy frames work only with the AT_ENTRY mechanism.
>
> But for 32 bit SPARC ABI we need ON_STACK, see
> http://sourceware.cygnus.com/ml/gdb/1999-q4/msg00064.html
> http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb-patches/2000-05/msg00041.html
> for an explanation.
>
> I am afraid that we have to extend the generic dummy frame code to allow
> ON_STACK, if we want to use generic dummy frames for SPARC.
True, there is a comment in my upcoming patches which looks like this:
+ /* This is no way we could ever use AT_ENTRY_POINT for call dummy
+ on 32-bit Sparc targets. The reason is for proper nested handling
+ of the unimp-after-call convention used when returning structures
+ from functions. */
What I am referring to more specifically is the dummy frame
descriptors which the generic dummy frame support creates and
keeps track of. That is generic, and independant of the
CALL_DUMMY mechanism a target uses.
That aspect is perfect, and I implemented something similar in my
sparc patches. That bit of the generic dummy frame bits could be
reused instead of duplicating such state tracking in sparc specific
code.
Isn't it possible to use ON_STACK for dummy frames and still use
the dummy frame tracking support provided by generic dummy frames?
I don't see anything specific to the CALL_DUMMY mechanism used in
those structures.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2002-04-18 22:37 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2002-04-18 9:06 Michael Elizabeth Chastain
2002-04-18 9:21 ` Andrew Cagney
2002-04-18 15:04 ` David S. Miller
2002-04-18 15:29 ` Andrew Cagney
2002-04-18 15:37 ` David S. Miller [this message]
2002-04-18 16:25 ` Andrew Cagney
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2002-04-17 12:57 David S. Miller
2002-04-18 7:48 ` Fernando Nasser
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=20020418.152834.121227947.davem@redhat.com \
--to=davem@redhat.com \
--cc=ac131313@cygnus.com \
--cc=cagney@cygnus.com \
--cc=fnasser@redhat.com \
--cc=gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com \
--cc=mec@shout.net \
/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