From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 30646 invoked by alias); 11 Nov 2004 17:04:39 -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 30358 invoked from network); 11 Nov 2004 17:04:27 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 11 Nov 2004 17:04:27 -0000 Received: from int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (int-mx1.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.254]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id iABH4GTh011037 for ; Thu, 11 Nov 2004 12:04:21 -0500 Received: from pobox.corp.redhat.com (pobox.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.156]) by int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id iABH4Br09362; Thu, 11 Nov 2004 12:04:11 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain (vpn50-14.rdu.redhat.com [172.16.50.14]) by pobox.corp.redhat.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id iABH4Abj002281; Thu, 11 Nov 2004 12:04:10 -0500 Received: from saguaro (saguaro.lan [192.168.64.2]) by localhost.localdomain (8.12.11/8.12.10) with SMTP id iABH45Iw011959; Thu, 11 Nov 2004 10:04:05 -0700 Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2004 17:04:00 -0000 From: Kevin Buettner To: "Michael Snyder" Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [RFA] Tweak in skip_prologue for rs6000 Message-Id: <20041111100404.715526e8@saguaro> In-Reply-To: <00c901c4c78b$5e1591f0$5ca56b80@msnyder8600> References: <00c901c4c78b$5e1591f0$5ca56b80@msnyder8600> Organization: Red Hat Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2004-11/txt/msg00234.txt.bz2 On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 17:11:21 -0800 "Michael Snyder" wrote: > If I'm right, this will prevent saving lr_offset twice. It looks like the > existing code intends to invalidate lr_reg, but setting it to zero is not > an invalid value. Yes, I agree with your analysis. Setting lr_reg to 0 will cause a match whenever doing a st[dw]{,u} r0, NUM(r1). While this is okay if the zero value comes from the mflr case, it is definitely not okay in the lr_reg invalidation code. > Probably the same is true for cr_reg and cr_offset... Yes, it appears so. Would you mind making the same fix for these? Consider such a patch to be preapproved. > * rs6000-tdep.c (skip_prologue): After saving lr_offset, > must invalidate lr_reg (so we don't try to save it again). Definitely okay. Thanks for fixing this, Kevin