From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 15742 invoked by alias); 5 Sep 2003 10:14:19 -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 15735 invoked from network); 5 Sep 2003 10:14:19 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO cam-admin0.cambridge.arm.com) (193.131.176.54) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 5 Sep 2003 10:14:19 -0000 Received: from pc960.cambridge.arm.com (pc960.cambridge.arm.com [10.1.205.4]) by cam-admin0.cambridge.arm.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA25633; Fri, 5 Sep 2003 11:14:17 +0100 (BST) Received: from pc960.cambridge.arm.com (rearnsha@localhost) by pc960.cambridge.arm.com (8.11.6/8.9.3) with ESMTP id h85AEGl21565; Fri, 5 Sep 2003 11:14:17 +0100 Message-Id: <200309051014.h85AEGl21565@pc960.cambridge.arm.com> X-Authentication-Warning: pc960.cambridge.arm.com: rearnsha owned process doing -bs To: Jerome Guitton cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com, Richard.Earnshaw@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] ARM : prologue scan In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 22 Jul 2003 13:47:09 +0200." <20030722114709.GB3100@act-europe.fr> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Fri, 05 Sep 2003 10:14:00 -0000 From: Richard Earnshaw X-SW-Source: 2003-09/txt/msg00059.txt.bz2 > > I have done some minor corrections on the previous patch, discard it. > In attachment, the new version. No regression, no fixed. > > -- > Jerome. > > 2003-07-21 J. Guitton > > * arm-tdep.c (arm_skip_prologue): Add the handling of "sub ip, sp #n" > and "add ip, sp #n", as these instructions can be found in a ATPCS > compliant prologue. > (arm_scan_prologue): Ditto. I don't think there are ever any circumstances when a SUB instruction would be used. To do so would imply that on return we want to leave space allocated on the stack. However, it doesn't really harm. Secondly, and this applies only to the ChangeLog entry itself, this entry sequence is nothing to do with the ATPCS (the A*T*PCS doesn't even sanction the use of a frame pointer). Supporting nested functions is at best a gcc extension (at worst it's a gcc hack). Anyway, it's not normal to put the reason for a change in a CL entry, so just truncate the sentence to read: > 2003-07-21 J. Guitton > > * arm-tdep.c (arm_skip_prologue): Handle "sub ip, sp #n" and > "add ip, sp #n" in the prologue. > (arm_scan_prologue): Ditto. With that change, this is OK. R.