Re: [RFA] sh-tdep.c: New patch solving gdb1291.exp (was Re: [RFA] Fix PR tdep/1291, SH prologue scanning bug)

Elena Zannoni
2004-03-05T22:36:47Z

Corinna Vinschen writes:
> On Feb 19 23:44, Fred Fish wrote:
> > This patch fixes the bug reported in PR 1291. It is based on the suggested
> > patch included in the PR. I believe it is small enough to not need a
> > copyright assignment, but recent events may have changed that. :-(
> >
> > -Fred
> >
> > 2004-02-19 Fred Fish <fnf@redhat.com>
> >
> > Fix for PR tdep/1291 as suggested by inaba@src.ricoh.co.jp
> > * sh-tdep.c (IS_MOV_R3): Rename to IS_MOV_IMM_R3 and fix pattern.
> > (IS_ADD_R3SP): Rename to IS_ADD_R3_SP for consistency.
> > (IS_MOVW_R1): New macro.
> > (IS_MOVL_R1): New macro.
> > (IS_SUB_R1_SP): New macro.
> > (sh_analyze_prologue): Add r1_val local var and initialize to zero.
> > Use IS_MOVW_R1, IS_MOVL_R1, and IS_SUB_R1_SP to recognize use of
> > stack allocation via constant loaded into r1.
>
> I've looked into this one and found that there's a very simple patch
> to solve that issue. Basically the evaluation of the memory address
> to access in PC relative addressing was misbehaving. The below patch
> evaluates the PC relative memory location now exactly according to the
> descriptions of the PC relative addressing modes with 8 bit displacement
> in the official SH documentation:
>
> FOO.w @(disp:8,PC):
>
> displacement = (instruction & 0xff) << 1;
> address = (PC + 4) + displacement;
>
> FOO.l @(disp:8,PC):
>
> displacement = (instruction & 0xff) << 2;
> address = ((PC & 0xfffffffc) + 4) + displacement;
>
> I checked the entire testsuite against sh2, sh2e, sh3, sh4 and sh4-nofpu.
> In all cases, the FAIL count has been reduced by exactly one, the FAIL
> from gdb1291.exp.
>
> Is that ok to checkin?
>

If this fixes PR/1291, it should refer to it in the changelog, and
also the pr should be closed.

otherwise ok.