From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 21370 invoked by alias); 9 Sep 2003 10:23:40 -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 21363 invoked from network); 9 Sep 2003 10:23:39 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO dublin.act-europe.fr) (212.157.227.154) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 9 Sep 2003 10:23:39 -0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by amavis.act-europe.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0C588229FCC; Tue, 9 Sep 2003 12:23:37 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from dublin.act-europe.fr ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (dublin.act-europe.fr [127.0.0.1:10024]) (amavisd-new) with ESMTP id 20446-04; Tue, 9 Sep 2003 12:23:22 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from berne.int.act-europe.fr (berne.act-europe.fr [10.10.0.165]) by dublin.act-europe.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 45627229FCA; Tue, 9 Sep 2003 12:23:16 +0200 (MET DST) Received: by berne.int.act-europe.fr (Postfix, from userid 560) id BC015592B; Tue, 9 Sep 2003 06:23:15 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 09 Sep 2003 10:23:00 -0000 From: Jerome Guitton To: Richard.Earnshaw@arm.com Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [RFA] ARM : prologue scan Message-ID: <20030909102315.GQ26104@act-europe.fr> References: <20030722114709.GB3100@act-europe.fr> <200309051014.h85AEGl21565@pc960.cambridge.arm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200309051014.h85AEGl21565@pc960.cambridge.arm.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new X-SW-Source: 2003-09/txt/msg00152.txt.bz2 Richard Earnshaw (rearnsha@arm.com): > > 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. > > 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). You are right. I got confused by these comments: The APCS (ARM Procedure Call Standard) defines the following prologue: mov ip, sp [stmfd sp!, {a1,a2,a3,a4}] stmfd sp!, {...,fp,ip,lr,pc} [stfe f7, [sp, #-12]!] [stfe f6, [sp, #-12]!] [stfe f5, [sp, #-12]!] [stfe f4, [sp, #-12]!] sub fp, ip, #nn @@ nn == 20 or 4 depending on second insn */ I didn't see this definition in the ARM Thumb Procedure Call Standard... Is the ARM Procedure Call Standard a different document? If so, what is its status (Does the ATPCS make the APCS obsolete?) and where can I find it? > Anyway, it's not normal > to put the reason for a change in a CL entry, so just truncate the > sentence to read: I used to thought that it was the most important part of the CL entry. The change itself in the code, the reason in the CL... I guess I am wrong. > With that change, this is OK. Thank you very much for your review! -- Jerome