Mirror of the gdb-patches mailing list
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
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


  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