Re: [PING2] : [RFC/RFA] PING: skip __main

[Mark Kettenis <mark.kettenis@xs4all.nl>]

> From: "Pierre Muller" <muller@ics.u-strasbg.fr>
> Date: Fri, 30 May 2008 15:06:51 +0200
> 
> > I'm afraid I think that skip_main_constructor_call is too long as a name.
> 
>   I am perfectly willing to use something shorter, 
> the only problem is to find something that would still be 
> of clear meaning.
> 
>    maybe
>   skip_main_prologue
> would be better?

Actually, I think it is.  The functionality can be used for other
prologue skipping that's not really related to constructors as well.

> > I'd also appreciate it if you could seperate local variable
> > declarations from the stations that follow by a blank line.  Otherwise
> > this looks ok to me.
> 
>   Does this apply to both uninitialized and initialized variables?
> 
> Would the code hereafter be correct, or did I add too many empty lines?

Please remove the blank line before the "struct minimal_symbol *s"
declaration.

> +/* Check that the code pointed to by PC corresponds to a call to
> +   __main, skip it if so.  Return PC otherwise.  */
> +
> +CORE_ADDR
> +i386_skip_main_constructor_call (struct gdbarch *gdbarch, CORE_ADDR pc)
> +{
> +  gdb_byte op;
> +
> +  target_read_memory (pc, &op, 1);
> +  if (op == 0xe8)
> +    {
> +      gdb_byte buf[4];
> +
> +      if (target_read_memory (pc + 1, buf, sizeof buf) == 0)
> +       {
> +         CORE_ADDR call_dest = pc + 5 + extract_unsigned_integer (buf, 4);
> +
> +         struct minimal_symbol *s = lookup_minimal_symbol_by_pc
> (call_dest);
> +
> +         if (s != NULL
> +             && SYMBOL_LINKAGE_NAME (s) != NULL
> +             && strcmp (SYMBOL_LINKAGE_NAME (s), "__main") == 0)
> +           pc += 5;
> +       }
> +    }
> +
> +  return pc;
> +}
> +