From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 6082 invoked by alias); 8 Mar 2005 09:00:18 -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 5923 invoked from network); 8 Mar 2005 09:00:13 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 8 Mar 2005 09:00:13 -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 j2890Cna014213 for ; Tue, 8 Mar 2005 04:00:12 -0500 Received: from potter.sfbay.redhat.com (potter.sfbay.redhat.com [172.16.27.15]) by int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id j28907n26466 for ; Tue, 8 Mar 2005 04:00:07 -0500 Received: from cygbert.vinschen.de (vpn50-28.rdu.redhat.com [172.16.50.28]) by potter.sfbay.redhat.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id j289055s032107 for ; Tue, 8 Mar 2005 04:00:06 -0500 Received: by cygbert.vinschen.de (Postfix, from userid 500) id 3F67957D8B; Tue, 8 Mar 2005 09:59:58 +0100 (CET) Date: Tue, 08 Mar 2005 09:00:00 -0000 From: Corinna Vinschen To: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [RFA] New GDB target iq2000 Message-ID: <20050308085958.GB24764@cygbert.vinschen.de> Reply-To: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Mail-Followup-To: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com References: <20050222114141.GA18314@cygbert.vinschen.de> <20050307213534.GB28207@nevyn.them.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20050307213534.GB28207@nevyn.them.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2i X-SW-Source: 2005-03/txt/msg00113.txt.bz2 On Mar 7 16:35, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > On Tue, Feb 22, 2005 at 12:41:41PM +0100, Corinna Vinschen wrote: > > Hi, > > > > this posting contributes the iq2000 code for GDB. > > > > There's just one problem with it. Older GCC code (older than two days, > > actually), emits an asymmetrical register numbering in the dwarf2 debugging > > output. The iq2000 uses register 31 as link register, which contains the > > return address to the calling function. For some reason GCC emitted the > > register number 26 in the dwarf2 information for this register. Every > > other register has been used unchanged in dwarf2, so there was no > > unambiguous translation from dwarf2 register numbers to real register > > numbers, if the dwarf2 register was "26". This has been fixed yesterday > > in GCC HEAD. > > > > 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? > > This is OK; I'll handle the linetable issues separately. Thanks, applied. Corinna -- Corinna Vinschen Cygwin Project Co-Leader Red Hat, Inc.