Mirror of the gdb-patches mailing list
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
* [RFA] ARM : prologue scan
@ 2003-07-21 14:27 Jerome Guitton
  2003-07-21 14:31 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
                   ` (2 more replies)
  0 siblings, 3 replies; 18+ messages in thread
From: Jerome Guitton @ 2003-07-21 14:27 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: gdb-patches

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1791 bytes --]


Here is a patch to improve the interpretation of the prologue for the
ARM targets.  Consider this C code :

void r() {
  void s () {
  }

  void q () {
    s();
  }

  q();
}

with GCC 3.2.3 configured for xscale-elf, this assembler is generated:

[...]

q.1:
        @ Nested: function declared inside another function.
        @ args = 0, pretend = 0, frame = 4
        @ frame_needed = 1, uses_anonymous_args = 0
        str     ip, [sp, #-4]!
        add     ip, sp, #4
        stmfd   sp!, {fp, ip, lr, pc}
        sub     fp, ip, #8
        ldr     ip, [fp, #4]
        @ ip needed for prologue
        sub     sp, sp, #4
        str     ip, [fp, #-16]
        mov     r3, ip
        mov     ip, r3
        bl      s.0
        ldmea   fp, {fp, sp, pc}
.Lfe2:

[...]

The prologue is compliant with the ARM Thumb procedure call standard, but
GDB is not able to interprete the instruction "add     ip, sp, #4",
and builds a bogus backtrace:

(gdb) l r.c:2
1       void r() {
2         void s () {
3         }
4
5         void q () {
6           s();
7         }
8
9         q();
10      }
(gdb) b 2
Breakpoint 1 at 0x0: file r.c, line 2.
(gdb) r r
Starting program: /cardiff.a/guitton/fsf/gdb/tmp/r.o r

Breakpoint 1, s.0 () at r.c:2
2         void s () {
(gdb) bt
#0  s.0 () at r.c:2
#1  q.1 () at r.c:6
#2  0xa2eebb940 in system__exception_table__exception_htable__iterator_indexXn
(gdb)

This patch adds the interpretation of the missing "add" (resp. "sub")
instruction. I have run the testsuite with the simulator, and I
found no regression; but there was a lot of test that failed, so I have
some suspicion on my setup. Can someone give me the average success/failure
on this target, or (even better :-) test it on his own setup?
Is the arm simulator (HEAD) reliable?

-- 
Jerome


[-- Attachment #2: arm_bt.dif --]
[-- Type: text/plain, Size: 2395 bytes --]

2003-07-21  J. Guitton  <guitton@gnat.com>

	* 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.

Index: arm-tdep.c
===================================================================
RCS file: /cvs/src/src/gdb/arm-tdep.c,v
retrieving revision 1.143
diff -3 -u -p -r1.143 arm-tdep.c
--- arm-tdep.c	13 Jun 2003 14:15:51 -0000	1.143
+++ arm-tdep.c	21 Jul 2003 14:02:01 -0000
@@ -449,6 +449,12 @@ arm_skip_prologue (CORE_ADDR pc)
       if (inst == 0xe1a0c00d)			/* mov ip, sp */
 	continue;
 
+      if ((inst & 0xfffff000) == 0xe28dc000)    /* add ip, sp #n */
+	continue;
+
+      if ((inst & 0xfffff000) == 0xe24dc000)    /* sub ip, sp #n */
+	continue;
+
       /* Some prologues begin with "str lr, [sp, #-4]!".  */
       if (inst == 0xe52de004)			/* str lr, [sp, #-4]! */
 	continue;
@@ -708,7 +714,7 @@ thumb_scan_prologue (struct frame_info *
 static void
 arm_scan_prologue (struct frame_info *fi)
 {
-  int regno, sp_offset, fp_offset;
+  int regno, sp_offset, fp_offset, ip_offset;
   LONGEST return_value;
   CORE_ADDR prologue_start, prologue_end, current_pc;
 
@@ -809,6 +815,23 @@ arm_scan_prologue (struct frame_info *fi
 
       if (insn == 0xe1a0c00d)		/* mov ip, sp */
 	{
+	  ip_offset = 0;
+	  continue;
+	}
+      else if ((insn & 0xfffff000) == 0xe28dc000) /* add ip, sp #n */
+	{
+	  unsigned imm = insn & 0xff;                   /* immediate value */
+	  unsigned rot = (insn & 0xf00) >> 7;           /* rotate amount */
+	  imm = (imm >> rot) | (imm << (32 - rot));
+	  ip_offset = imm;
+	  continue;
+	}
+      else if ((insn & 0xfffff000) == 0xe24dc000) /* sub ip, sp #n */
+	{
+	  unsigned imm = insn & 0xff;                   /* immediate value */
+	  unsigned rot = (insn & 0xf00) >> 7;           /* rotate amount */
+	  imm = (imm >> rot) | (imm << (32 - rot));
+	  ip_offset = -imm;
 	  continue;
 	}
       else if (insn == 0xe52de004)	/* str lr, [sp, #-4]! */
@@ -858,7 +881,7 @@ arm_scan_prologue (struct frame_info *fi
 	  unsigned imm = insn & 0xff;			/* immediate value */
 	  unsigned rot = (insn & 0xf00) >> 7;		/* rotate amount */
 	  imm = (imm >> rot) | (imm << (32 - rot));
-	  sp_offset -= imm;
+	  sp_offset -= imm + ip_offset;
 	}
       else if ((insn & 0xffff7fff) == 0xed6d0103)	/* stfe f?, [sp, -#c]! */
 	{

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2003-09-25 14:24 UTC | newest]

Thread overview: 18+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2003-07-21 14:27 [RFA] ARM : prologue scan Jerome Guitton
2003-07-21 14:31 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2003-07-21 14:38   ` Jerome Guitton
2003-07-21 14:57     ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2003-07-21 15:20       ` Jerome Guitton
2003-07-21 15:28         ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2003-07-21 15:43           ` Jerome Guitton
2003-07-22  9:48 ` Jerome Guitton
2003-07-22 11:47 ` Jerome Guitton
2003-09-01 15:45   ` Ping: " Jerome Guitton
2003-09-05 10:14   ` Richard Earnshaw
2003-09-05 15:56     ` Joel Brobecker
2003-09-05 16:03       ` Richard Earnshaw
2003-09-09 10:23     ` Jerome Guitton
2003-09-09 12:49       ` Richard Earnshaw
2003-09-09 12:52         ` Jerome Guitton
2003-09-23 19:03       ` Jerome Guitton
2003-09-25 14:24         ` [commit] " Jerome Guitton

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox