From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-patches-return-56376-listarch-gdb-patches=sources.redhat.com@sourceware.org>
Received: (qmail 24588 invoked by alias); 30 May 2008 15:33:59 -0000
Received: (qmail 24579 invoked by uid 22791); 30 May 2008 15:33:58 -0000
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from sibelius.xs4all.nl (HELO sibelius.xs4all.nl) (82.92.89.47)     by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Fri, 30 May 2008 15:33:41 +0000
Received: from brahms.sibelius.xs4all.nl (kettenis@localhost.sibelius.xs4all.nl [127.0.0.1]) 	by brahms.sibelius.xs4all.nl (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id m4UFWGnj009759; 	Fri, 30 May 2008 17:32:16 +0200 (CEST)
Received: (from kettenis@localhost) 	by brahms.sibelius.xs4all.nl (8.14.3/8.14.3/Submit) id m4UFWGBv003126; 	Fri, 30 May 2008 17:32:16 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Sat, 31 May 2008 23:40:00 -0000
Message-Id: <200805301532.m4UFWGBv003126@brahms.sibelius.xs4all.nl>
From: Mark Kettenis <mark.kettenis@xs4all.nl>
To: muller@ics.u-strasbg.fr
CC: pedro@codesourcery.com, drow@false.org, gdb-patches@sourceware.org
In-reply-to: <001901c8c256$06f8be00$14ea3a00$@u-strasbg.fr> 	(muller@ics.u-strasbg.fr)
Subject: Re: [PING2] : [RFC/RFA] PING: skip __main
References: <004f01c8ac58$06a1ddb0$13e59910$@u-strasbg.fr> <000c01c8c246$de300f50$9a902df0$@u-strasbg.fr> <200805301157.m4UBvOL5009408@brahms.sibelius.xs4all.nl> <001901c8c256$06f8be00$14ea3a00$@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: 2008-05/txt/msg00777.txt.bz2

> 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;
> +}
> +