From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 24764 invoked by alias); 22 Nov 2006 18:53:06 -0000 Received: (qmail 24756 invoked by uid 22791); 22 Nov 2006 18:53:06 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from nevyn.them.org (HELO nevyn.them.org) (66.93.172.17) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31.1) with ESMTP; Wed, 22 Nov 2006 18:53:01 +0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1GmxDP-0002mc-2p; Wed, 22 Nov 2006 13:52:59 -0500 Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2006 18:53:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Richard Earnshaw , gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [rfa/arm] Improve Thumb prologue analysis Message-ID: <20061122185259.GB10495@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Richard Earnshaw , gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <20061121191508.GA2056@nevyn.them.org> <1164190203.17413.7.camel@pc960.cambridge.arm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1164190203.17413.7.camel@pc960.cambridge.arm.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11) X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2006-11/txt/msg00261.txt.bz2 On Wed, Nov 22, 2006 at 10:10:03AM +0000, Richard Earnshaw wrote: > > The patch fixes a backtrace from abort in gdb1250.exp. With DWARF support > > turned off, it also fixes recurse.exp; in fact, with the patch applied, GDB > > testsuite results are the same with or without DWARF unwinding. I presume > > the new test will misbehave on a target which has no Thumb support; I > > don't have one handy, but once someone encounters that failure it should be > > easy to detect it and skip the test. We'll presumably get a SIGILL. > > > > Would gcc/testsuite/lib/target-supports.exp:check_effective_target_arm32 > do the job? I think so, but not easily - it's got a bunch of dg-specific goo to set $compiler_flags and we'd have to do it differently. > > OK? > > > > Yes, this is great, thanks. Thanks, checked in (HEAD only). -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery