From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 27486 invoked by alias); 16 Aug 2002 17:17:17 -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 27479 invoked from network); 16 Aug 2002 17:17:14 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO takamaka.act-europe.fr) (142.179.108.108) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 16 Aug 2002 17:17:14 -0000 Received: by takamaka.act-europe.fr (Postfix, from userid 507) id 3A6B5D2CBD; Fri, 16 Aug 2002 10:17:16 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2002 10:17:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Jim Blandy Cc: Andrew Cagney , Jim Ingham , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [RFC] breakpoints and function prologues... Message-ID: <20020816171716.GH906@gnat.com> References: <157B023C-B09E-11D6-BDB5-00039379E320@apple.com> <3D5C4FCB.4070005@ges.redhat.com> <20020816021108.GG906@gnat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i X-SW-Source: 2002-08/txt/msg00426.txt.bz2 > Let me make sure I understand what the Tru64 linker is doing. It > recognizes that the first two instructions at some function's entry > point are unnecessary, and then it ... here is where I get vague. > Does it: > a) delete those two instructions from the code stream altogether, > shifting all subsequent instructions down in memory, > b) leave the instructions there, but adjust the value of the linker > symbol to point two instructions beyond where it used to, or > c) leave the instructions and the linker symbol value unchanged, but > tweak certain jumps to that symbol to actually jump two > instructions beyond the symbol's value? The linker is doing c). > But what you're describing here is a rather different situation: the > function has multiple entry points, depending on whether (I'm > guessing) it's reached via an intra- or inter-load module call. > > It seems to me there should be a separate gdbarch method to handle > that, because its semantics are different. Fair enough. I like this design. -- Joel