Re: [RFA] New GDB target iq2000

[Corinna Vinschen <vinschen@redhat.com>]

On Mar  3 12:34, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 22, 2005 at 12:41:41PM +0100, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> > As a result, the dwarf2 frame sniffer has a problem with code generated
> > by GCC's older than two days.  This is no problem for the iq2000 frame
> > sniffer implemented in iq2000-tdep.c, but as usual, the iq2000 frame
> > sniffer is appended after the dwarf2 frame sniffer:
> > 
> >     frame_unwind_append_sniffer (gdbarch, dwarf2_frame_sniffer);
> >     frame_unwind_append_sniffer (gdbarch, iq2000_frame_sniffer);
> > 
> > Would that be a good reason to disable the dwarf2 frame sniffer for now?
> > Or shall I leave that as is?
> 
> It's up to you; I think leaving it as is and writing off the problem as
> a broken compiler will probably be good enough for the iq2000 userbase.
> If it isn't, we can come back to the problem later.

Sounds like a plan to me.

> It looks good to me, but I have one concern.  You've got
> find_last_line_symbol:
> 
> > +/* Function: find_last_line_symbol
> > +
> > +   Given an address range, first find a line symbol corresponding to
> > +   the starting address.  Then find the last line symbol within the 
> > +   range that has a line number less than or equal to the first line.
> > +
> > +   For optimized code with code motion, this finds the last address
> > +   for the lowest-numbered line within the address range.  */

What's your exact concern with this function?  It's just used inside
of the iq2000 prologue scanner to decide if the scanning loop should
break or continue.

> And you've got this too:
> 
> > +static CORE_ADDR
> > +iq2000_skip_prologue (CORE_ADDR pc)
> > +{
> > +  CORE_ADDR func_addr = 0 , func_end = 0;
> > +
> > +  if (find_pc_partial_function (pc, NULL, & func_addr, & func_end))
> > +    {
> > +      struct symtab_and_line sal;
> > +      struct iq2000_frame_cache cache;
> > +
> > +      /* Found a function.  */
> > +      sal = find_pc_line (func_addr, 0);
> > +      if (sal.end && sal.end < func_end)
> > +	/* Found a line number, use it as end of prologue.  */
> > +	return sal.end;
> > +
> > +      /* No useable line symbol.  Use prologue parsing method.  */
> > +      iq2000_init_frame_cache (&cache);
> > +      return iq2000_scan_prologue (func_addr, func_end, NULL, &cache);
> > +    }
> > +
> > +  /* No function symbol -- just return the PC.  */
> > +  return (CORE_ADDR) pc;
> > +}
> 
> I'm trying to cut down on the proliferation of linetable-aware code in
> tdep files.  We've already got skip_prologue_using_sal, which is
> similar but not quite the same.  Will that work for iq2000?  Failing
> that, should the new method be used on other targets?  There's nothing
> iq2000 specific about it.

Except for calling iq2000_scan_prologue, a function which is entirely
internal to the iq2000 code and not available through the gdbarch framework.

I'm sorry, but the reason for getting rid of linetable-aware code is
somewhat beyond me.  I'll happily do something else, as far as it's
available and works, but using skip_prologue_using_sal is really no
option here.

Any chance I can apply the code, after removing the
set_gdbarch_decr_pc_after_break call?


Corinna

-- 
Corinna Vinschen
Cygwin Project Co-Leader
Red Hat, Inc.