From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 14288 invoked by alias); 23 Feb 2012 22:53:15 -0000 Received: (qmail 14110 invoked by uid 22791); 23 Feb 2012 22:53:14 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.8 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,SPF_HELO_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Thu, 23 Feb 2012 22:53:01 +0000 Received: from int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.11]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q1NMr137024426 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK) for ; Thu, 23 Feb 2012 17:53:01 -0500 Received: from mesquite.lan (ovpn-113-100.phx2.redhat.com [10.3.113.100]) by int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q1NMr0ah005273 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO) for ; Thu, 23 Feb 2012 17:53:01 -0500 Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2012 23:57:00 -0000 From: Kevin Buettner To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: Simulator testing for sh and sh64 Message-ID: <20120223155300.4b1c8a9b@mesquite.lan> In-Reply-To: <87obsp8h41.fsf@schwinge.name> References: <87pqdgciho.fsf@schwinge.name> <20120215075413.1313f7fa@mesquite.lan> <20120215165907.33f2e9a6@mesquite.lan> <8739aad9il.fsf@schwinge.name> <20120216182544.36b41a1b@mesquite.lan> <87zkca9azw.fsf@schwinge.name> <20120222093929.7e86fba2@mesquite.lan> <87wr7e8y60.fsf@schwinge.name> <87obsp8h41.fsf@schwinge.name> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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: 2012-02/txt/msg00527.txt.bz2 On Thu, 23 Feb 2012 20:49:50 +0100 Thomas Schwinge wrote: > I did, but it's turning into a rat's nest -- sh64-tdep needs several > years of catch-up, as it seems. The SIGILL issue that I briefly > described is what Kevin (hello, hello!) :-) fixed for MIPS in > 486ee7f3437358941f0762ace2550170ef474de1, > ; basically > the issue is that setting PC's bit 0 in sh64_elf_make_msymbol_special for > ISA32 (SHmedia) code will confuse GDB's msymbol machinery, resulting > first in a 1-byte offset, which is later ``fixed'' into the 2-byte offset > that I mentioned. And patching a 4-byte breakpoint instruction into the > middle of two 4-byte instructions is very likely to cause a SIGILL. For what it's worth, I used arm as a model when I made those MIPS changes. I think I referenced one other architecture too, but I don't recall what it was. Kevin