From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 13657 invoked by alias); 17 Jun 2005 04:07:12 -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 13512 invoked by uid 22791); 17 Jun 2005 04:06:38 -0000 Received: from nevyn.them.org (HELO nevyn.them.org) (66.93.172.17) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.30-dev) with ESMTP; Fri, 17 Jun 2005 04:06:38 +0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 4.51) id 1Dj87n-0002cI-Nu; Fri, 17 Jun 2005 00:06:35 -0400 Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2005 04:07:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Joel Brobecker Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [RFC] pb unwinding from pthread_cond_wait on ppc-linux (RFA?) Message-ID: <20050617040635.GJ17013@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Joel Brobecker , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com References: <20041208155633.GX2524@adacore.com> <20041208161420.GA29978@nevyn.them.org> <20041208163211.GY2524@adacore.com> <20041208163442.GA30584@nevyn.them.org> <20041209160017.GE1382@adacore.com> <20050209170211.GD18540@adacore.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20050209170211.GD18540@adacore.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.8i X-SW-Source: 2005-06/txt/msg00242.txt.bz2 On Wed, Feb 09, 2005 at 12:02:11PM -0500, Joel Brobecker wrote: > Ping? You may want to ping at Andrew and Kevin directly about this. > On Thu, Dec 09, 2004 at 05:00:17PM +0100, Joel Brobecker wrote: > > > Precisely! That's what I thought it would be. It's trying to load lr > > > with the address of @+16, so that the function can access PIC data > > > using PC-relative displacement. > > > > Daniel, you never stop to impress me. > > > > > (Does this obsolete the "branch in first three insns" check? I'm not > > > sure if there are other possible reasons for that.) > > > > Here is a new patch that implements your suggestion. Indeed, I could > > then remove the "branch in first three insns" check... FYI, rethinking this, this is not such a good idea (removing the check, I mean). While the check itself is pretty bogus, the comment above says: { /* bl foo, to save fprs??? */ I know at least Darwin does this. So maybe the new check should be additional instead of a replacement. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery, LLC