From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 12533 invoked by alias); 31 Dec 2006 14:39:59 -0000 Received: (qmail 12525 invoked by uid 22791); 31 Dec 2006 14:39:59 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from nile.gnat.com (HELO nile.gnat.com) (205.232.38.5) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Sun, 31 Dec 2006 14:39:54 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-nile.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A4FD748CFF1; Sun, 31 Dec 2006 09:38:17 -0500 (EST) Received: from nile.gnat.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (nile.gnat.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 29348-01-9; Sun, 31 Dec 2006 09:38:17 -0500 (EST) Received: from takamaka.act-europe.fr (AStDenis-105-1-28-173.w81-248.abo.wanadoo.fr [81.248.254.173]) by nile.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C32CF48CFED; Sun, 31 Dec 2006 09:38:16 -0500 (EST) Received: by takamaka.act-europe.fr (Postfix, from userid 1000) id DC6AA34C099; Sun, 31 Dec 2006 18:39:03 +0400 (RET) Date: Sun, 31 Dec 2006 14:39:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Mark Kettenis Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: PING: [RFA/i386] 2 more patterns in i386_analyze_stack_align Message-ID: <20061231143903.GB3428@adacore.com> References: <20061220104945.GB27642@adacore.com> <20061231060844.GP3640@adacore.com> <200612311215.kBVCF75Z010607@brahms.sibelius.xs4all.nl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200612311215.kBVCF75Z010607@brahms.sibelius.xs4all.nl> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.2i 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: 2006-12/txt/msg00402.txt.bz2 > Hmm, you're missing the %ebx case here. Now on ELF systems, you'll > probably never see it since %ebx is used for GOT access, but on other > object formats I don't think there is any reason why GCC wouldn't > choose to use %ebx as well. I can easily add the %ebx case as well, but I don't think GCC would currently use that register in any configuration. I'll double-check with one of my coworkers who told me about the other alternatives to using %ecx, but it will have to wait for a few days until the holidays are over. He told me about this after having looked at the code in GCC, so I would be surprised if he did not see the %ebx case... Note that even if GCC did not currently use %ebx, I don't mind adding support for it, JIC. > This looks reasonable otherwise, except that I would sort the patterns > in a more logical order. I sorted them in the order that GCC would use them. I don't mind sorting them in a different order, if you like. I will take this as approval, and wait for your comments to see if you'd like me to submit followup patches: adding support for the use of the %ebx case, and altering the patterns order. Thanks Mark, -- Joel