From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-patches-return-52636-listarch-gdb-patches=sources.redhat.com@sourceware.org>
Received: (qmail 16897 invoked by alias); 10 Dec 2007 18:54:19 -0000
Received: (qmail 16888 invoked by uid 22791); 10 Dec 2007 18:54:18 -0000
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from sibelius.xs4all.nl (HELO brahms.sibelius.xs4all.nl) (82.92.89.47)     by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Mon, 10 Dec 2007 18:54:14 +0000
Received: from brahms.sibelius.xs4all.nl (kettenis@localhost.sibelius.xs4all.nl [127.0.0.1]) 	by brahms.sibelius.xs4all.nl (8.14.1/8.14.0) with ESMTP id lBAIs9uJ024836; 	Mon, 10 Dec 2007 19:54:09 +0100 (CET)
Received: (from kettenis@localhost) 	by brahms.sibelius.xs4all.nl (8.14.1/8.14.1/Submit) id lBAIs91J031646; 	Mon, 10 Dec 2007 19:54:09 +0100 (CET)
Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2007 10:44:00 -0000
Message-Id: <200712101854.lBAIs91J031646@brahms.sibelius.xs4all.nl>
From: Mark Kettenis <mark.kettenis@xs4all.nl>
To: muller@ics.u-strasbg.fr
CC: gdb-patches@sourceware.org
In-reply-to: <000001c83b4a$573b4560$05b1d020$@u-strasbg.fr> 	(muller@ics.u-strasbg.fr)
Subject: Re: [RFC] Enhance backtrace for microsoft system DLL calls
References:  <000001c83b4a$573b4560$05b1d020$@u-strasbg.fr>
Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gdb-patches.sourceware.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gdb-patches-subscribe@sourceware.org>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gdb-patches@sourceware.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org
X-SW-Source: 2007-12/txt/msg00158.txt.bz2

> From: "Pierre Muller" <muller@ics.u-strasbg.fr>
> Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2007 17:33:05 +0100
> 
>   The main question is whether this patch is acceptable
> for gdb as it is in a i386 common file, while 
> it most probably only applies to MS operating system.

I have no problem with adding this to the generic i386, but I'd prefer
to put this code in a seperate function called
i386_skip_nops(CORE_ADDR pc); And call that function from
i386_analyze_prologue(), instead of adding this code to
i386_analyze_frame_setup().

> Pierre Muller
> 
> ChangeLog entry:
> 
> 2007-12-10  Pierre Muller  <muller@ics.u-strasbg.fr>
> 
> 	* i386-tdep.c (i386_analyze_frame_setup): Ignore `mov %edi,%edi'
> instruction
> 	used at entry of some operating system calls.
> 
> 	
> 
> 
> Index: gdb/i386-tdep.c
> ===================================================================
> RCS file: /cvs/src/src/gdb/i386-tdep.c,v
> retrieving revision 1.246
> diff -u -p -r1.246 i386-tdep.c
> --- gdb/i386-tdep.c     6 Dec 2007 16:32:59 -0000       1.246
> +++ gdb/i386-tdep.c     10 Dec 2007 16:22:21 -0000
> @@ -650,6 +650,17 @@ i386_analyze_frame_setup (CORE_ADDR pc,
> 
>    read_memory_nobpt (pc, &op, 1);
> 
> +  if (op == 0x8b) /* Ignore no-op instruction `mov %edi, %edi' */
> +    {
> +      read_memory_nobpt (pc + 1, &op, 1);
> +      if (op == 0xff)
> +       {
> +         pc += 2;
> +         read_memory_nobpt (pc, &op, 1);
> +       }
> +      else
> +       op = 0x8b;
> +    }
>    if (op == 0x55)              /* pushl %ebp */
>      {
>        /* Take into account that we've executed the `pushl %ebp' that
> 
> 
>