From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 26941 invoked by alias); 4 Sep 2008 19:32:46 -0000 Received: (qmail 26928 invoked by uid 22791); 4 Sep 2008 19:32:45 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from NaN.false.org (HELO nan.false.org) (208.75.86.248) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Thu, 04 Sep 2008 19:32:06 +0000 Received: from nan.false.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6C64F9841A; Thu, 4 Sep 2008 19:32:04 +0000 (GMT) Received: from caradoc.them.org (22.svnf5.xdsl.nauticom.net [209.195.183.55]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 32D5A98417; Thu, 4 Sep 2008 19:32:04 +0000 (GMT) Received: from drow by caradoc.them.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1KbKYl-0005qp-Co; Thu, 04 Sep 2008 15:32:03 -0400 Date: Thu, 04 Sep 2008 19:32:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Ulrich Weigand Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org, pedro@codesourcery.com Subject: Re: [rfc] Displaced stepping with wrong entry point address Message-ID: <20080904193203.GA22456@caradoc.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Ulrich Weigand , gdb-patches@sourceware.org, pedro@codesourcery.com References: <20080904121459.GB27200@caradoc.them.org> <200809041928.m84JS6uq032652@d12av02.megacenter.de.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200809041928.m84JS6uq032652@d12av02.megacenter.de.ibm.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2008-05-11) 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: 2008-09/txt/msg00070.txt.bz2 On Thu, Sep 04, 2008 at 09:28:06PM +0200, Ulrich Weigand wrote: > > If SPU ever did support displaced stepping (not that this would be > > terribly useful, but consider some other multi-architecture case), > > would this be wrong for the SPU side code? > > Yes, of course -- we have different address spaces here, and we need > to find a location within the address space of the current thread where > to place the displaced instruction. No single address would work for > both PowerPC and SPU code in a combined application. > > But I guess SPU could always install its own callback to handle those > special cases ... (just as we install the ON_STACK dummy call location > method because the AT_ENTRY method doesn't work for combined applications.) In that case, maybe this is really specific to PowerPC; it sounds like it won't work for any general multi-architecture target. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery