From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 32536 invoked by alias); 24 Apr 2002 09:23:24 -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 32522 invoked from network); 24 Apr 2002 09:23:20 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO fw-cam.cambridge.arm.com) (193.131.176.3) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 24 Apr 2002 09:23:20 -0000 Received: by fw-cam.cambridge.arm.com; id KAA01695; Wed, 24 Apr 2002 10:23:18 +0100 (BST) Received: from unknown(172.16.1.2) by fw-cam.cambridge.arm.com via smap (V5.5) id xma000816; Wed, 24 Apr 02 10:22:40 +0100 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 KAA09825; Wed, 24 Apr 2002 10:22:39 +0100 (BST) 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 KAA26547; Wed, 24 Apr 2002 10:22:38 +0100 (BST) Message-Id: <200204240922.KAA26547@cam-mail2.cambridge.arm.com> To: Michael Snyder cc: Richard.Earnshaw@arm.com, Michael Snyder , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com, cagney@redhat.com, rearnsha@arm.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: [RFA] More tweaks to arm_skip_prologue In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 23 Apr 2002 15:48:35 PDT." <3CC5E4C3.5B245D73@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2002 02:23:00 -0000 From: Richard Earnshaw X-SW-Source: 2002-04/txt/msg00925.txt.bz2 > Richard Earnshaw wrote: > [...] > > This should only ever be "str lr, [sp, #-4]!" (note the writeback). > > Richard, how's this revised patch? > > Do you think that, if we detect the str lr, [sp, -4]! > we should just return pc + 4 immediately? Well, there could be some stack allocation (and maybe some stores to it), there might, in theory, be some floating point stacking as well. > > 2002-04-22 Michael Snyder > > * arm-tdep.c (arm_skip_prologue): Better handling for frameless > functions. Treat "mov ip, sp" as optional. Recognize > "str lr, [sp, #-4]". Working on the principal that this is better than what we have, I think this should go in. More needs to be done, but I don't think it should block this change. See, for example, the test case I posted in my previous message.