From: Kevin Buettner <kevinb@redhat.com>
To: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
Subject: Re: [rfa:rs6000] Framefy rs6000 (and GNU/Linux PPC)
Date: Tue, 02 Mar 2004 23:01:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20040302160100.573bbadc@saguaro> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <40428F53.5080502@gnu.org>
On Sun, 29 Feb 2004 20:18:11 -0500
Andrew Cagney <cagney@gnu.org> wrote:
> The attached updates the rs6000 so that (well for NetBSD, "elf" and
> GNU/Linux 32+64) it uses the frame unwinder. It doesn't yet enable
> dwarf2-cfi.
>
> Apart from the bug: Use right frame ID in step_over_function
> http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb-patches/2004-02/msg00882.html
> the conversion was highly mechanical..
>
> Tested on NetBSD/PPC (which gets less failures) and GNU/Linux 32x64-bit
> and 64-bit (which get the same results).
Mostly okay. Just a few nits...
> +static const struct frame_unwind *
> +ppc_linux_sigtramp_sniffer (struct frame_info *next_frame)
> +{
> + struct gdbarch_tdep *tdep = gdbarch_tdep (get_frame_arch (next_frame));
> + if (frame_pc_unwind (next_frame)
> + > frame_unwind_register_unsigned (next_frame, SP_REGNUM))
> + /* Assume anything that is vaguely on the stack is a signal
> + trampoline. */
> + return &ppc_linux_sigtramp_unwind;
> + else
> + return NULL;
> +}
The test in the code above should be augmented with a call to
ppc_linux_at_sigtramp_return_path(). We should not assume that
only signal trampolines will be found when pc > sp. There could
be other executable code above the stack.
> static void
> ppc_linux_init_abi (struct gdbarch_info info,
> struct gdbarch *gdbarch)
> @@ -1051,6 +1157,7 @@
> PowerOpen struct convention. */
> set_gdbarch_return_value (gdbarch, ppc_linux_return_value);
>
> +#if 0
> /* Note: kevinb/2002-04-12: See note in rs6000_gdbarch_init regarding
> *_push_arguments(). The same remarks hold for the methods below. */
> set_gdbarch_deprecated_frameless_function_invocation (gdbarch, ppc_linux_frameless_function_invocation);
> @@ -1061,9 +1168,11 @@
> ppc_linux_frame_init_saved_regs);
> set_gdbarch_deprecated_init_extra_frame_info (gdbarch,
> ppc_linux_init_extra_frame_info);
> +#endif
Is there any reason to retain this #if 0'd code? If not, just delete it.
Kevin
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID
From: Kevin Buettner <kevinb@redhat.com>
To: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
Subject: Re: [rfa:rs6000] Framefy rs6000 (and GNU/Linux PPC)
Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2004 00:09:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20040302160100.573bbadc@saguaro> (raw)
Message-ID: <20040319000900.riy-8ZLs5AGrHEEnW_s8WacduR_mzl0-kadx0I40T3Y@z> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <40428F53.5080502@gnu.org>
On Sun, 29 Feb 2004 20:18:11 -0500
Andrew Cagney <cagney@gnu.org> wrote:
> The attached updates the rs6000 so that (well for NetBSD, "elf" and
> GNU/Linux 32+64) it uses the frame unwinder. It doesn't yet enable
> dwarf2-cfi.
>
> Apart from the bug: Use right frame ID in step_over_function
> http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb-patches/2004-02/msg00882.html
> the conversion was highly mechanical..
>
> Tested on NetBSD/PPC (which gets less failures) and GNU/Linux 32x64-bit
> and 64-bit (which get the same results).
Mostly okay. Just a few nits...
> +static const struct frame_unwind *
> +ppc_linux_sigtramp_sniffer (struct frame_info *next_frame)
> +{
> + struct gdbarch_tdep *tdep = gdbarch_tdep (get_frame_arch (next_frame));
> + if (frame_pc_unwind (next_frame)
> + > frame_unwind_register_unsigned (next_frame, SP_REGNUM))
> + /* Assume anything that is vaguely on the stack is a signal
> + trampoline. */
> + return &ppc_linux_sigtramp_unwind;
> + else
> + return NULL;
> +}
The test in the code above should be augmented with a call to
ppc_linux_at_sigtramp_return_path(). We should not assume that
only signal trampolines will be found when pc > sp. There could
be other executable code above the stack.
> static void
> ppc_linux_init_abi (struct gdbarch_info info,
> struct gdbarch *gdbarch)
> @@ -1051,6 +1157,7 @@
> PowerOpen struct convention. */
> set_gdbarch_return_value (gdbarch, ppc_linux_return_value);
>
> +#if 0
> /* Note: kevinb/2002-04-12: See note in rs6000_gdbarch_init regarding
> *_push_arguments(). The same remarks hold for the methods below. */
> set_gdbarch_deprecated_frameless_function_invocation (gdbarch, ppc_linux_frameless_function_invocation);
> @@ -1061,9 +1168,11 @@
> ppc_linux_frame_init_saved_regs);
> set_gdbarch_deprecated_init_extra_frame_info (gdbarch,
> ppc_linux_init_extra_frame_info);
> +#endif
Is there any reason to retain this #if 0'd code? If not, just delete it.
Kevin
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2004-03-02 23:01 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2004-03-01 1:18 Andrew Cagney
2004-03-02 23:01 ` Kevin Buettner [this message]
2004-03-19 0:09 ` Andrew Cagney
2004-03-03 15:36 ` Andrew Cagney
2004-03-15 18:28 ` Andrew Cagney
2004-03-19 0:09 ` Andrew Cagney
2004-03-19 0:09 ` Kevin Buettner
2004-03-15 20:15 ` Kevin Buettner
2004-03-19 0:09 ` Andrew Cagney
2004-03-15 22:51 ` Andrew Cagney
2004-03-16 15:56 ` Kevin Buettner
2004-03-19 0:09 ` Kevin Buettner
2004-03-19 0:09 ` Kevin Buettner
2004-03-19 0:09 ` Andrew Cagney
2004-03-20 5:03 ` Kevin Buettner
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20040302160100.573bbadc@saguaro \
--to=kevinb@redhat.com \
--cc=gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox