Re: [RFA] New GDB target iq2000

[Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org>]

On Fri, Mar 04, 2005 at 04:01:29PM +0100, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> On Mar  4 09:14, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 04, 2005 at 10:46:05AM +0100, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> > > I'm sorry, but the reason for getting rid of linetable-aware code is
> > > somewhat beyond me.
> > 
> > Because _there is nothing architecture specific about what you are
> > doing_.  Therefore, most likely, it is either right for all platforms
> > or wrong for this one.  I want to understand which.  If it's right for
> > all platforms, I'd like it to live in common code so that we can
> > maintain it for all platforms.
> 
> The platform specific part is to call iq2000_scan_prologue if the
> line number information is bogus.
> 
> > >  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.
> > 
> > Why?  Is it the same problem Kevin described?  As I wrote, I have
> > successfully used this function on other architectures.
> 
> I haven't exactly analyzed the situation so far, but using
> skip_prologue_using_sal results in three more FAILs in the testsuite:
> 
>   FAIL: gdb.base/break.exp: breakpoint small function, optimized file
>   FAIL: gdb.base/break.exp: run until breakpoint set at small function, optimized file
>   FAIL: gdb.base/nodebug.exp: running to inner in runto
> 
> All three cases don't look like simple coincidence.  In all three cases
> we suffer from either optimized code or unavailable debug information.
> The target specific "knowledge", which is represented by the call to
> iq2000_scan_prologue helps to master this situation.

Would you mind posting disassembly, line table (readelf -wl), and GDB
transcript for these failures?

I'm not trying to block the inclusion of the iq2000 port, but I would
like to make sure we understand this problem before we include a
workaround.

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery, LLC