From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 23081 invoked by alias); 7 Jul 2003 13:53:23 -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 23072 invoked from network); 7 Jul 2003 13:53:23 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO crack.them.org) (146.82.138.56) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 7 Jul 2003 13:53:23 -0000 Received: from dsl093-172-017.pit1.dsl.speakeasy.net ([66.93.172.17] helo=nevyn.them.org ident=mail) by crack.them.org with asmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 19ZWRk-000614-00 for ; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 08:54:24 -0500 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian)) id 19ZWQb-0006cA-00 for ; Mon, 07 Jul 2003 09:53:13 -0400 Date: Mon, 07 Jul 2003 13:53:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [RFA/ARM] Framificate the ARM port [3/3] Message-ID: <20030707135312.GB24634@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com References: <20030630225509.GA30844@nevyn.them.org> <3F01D27B.8070603@redhat.com> <20030701222615.GA13782@nevyn.them.org> <3F021836.6090809@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3F021836.6090809@redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.1i X-SW-Source: 2003-07/txt/msg00114.txt.bz2 On Tue, Jul 01, 2003 at 07:24:38PM -0400, Andrew Cagney wrote: > >Just in case you're wondering. > >> > >>This would break any architecture that didn't have an FP called "fp". > >>This is because, "$fp" defaults to get_frame_base() ... :-( > > > > > >Argh! > > :-) > > >get_frame_base_address defaults to get_frame_base; I could update > >value_of_builtin_frame_fp_reg safely, I think. But I have no idea > >where that would end up, so I'm going to defer to your judgement on > >this if you've got a preference... > > kfail arm-*-* gdb/497? > > Having value_of_builtin_frame_fp_reg return get_frame_base_address is > certainly more correct. The intent was for $fp to return the ABI's > virtual frame base register. > > Try it. > > PS: ARM $fp confusion fixed? > http://sources.redhat.com/cgi-bin/gnatsweb.pl?cmd=view%20audit-trail&database=gdb&pr=479 No, not fixed. $fp will return the frame base now. What it should do, IMO, is return $r11. Which isn't actually the frame pointer register for Thumb mode, but that's the convention the assembler uses. Which may then re-break the test until we fix this properly... Richard, does that sound right? Andrew, have we got a standard mechanism for register aliases, or would I need to create a pseudo-register $fp that mapped onto $r11? -- Daniel Jacobowitz MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer