From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 10555 invoked by alias); 9 May 2012 14:35:59 -0000 Received: (qmail 10440 invoked by uid 22791); 9 May 2012 14:35:58 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_NO X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from rock.gnat.com (HELO rock.gnat.com) (205.232.38.15) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Wed, 09 May 2012 14:35:45 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3FCBC1C6783; Wed, 9 May 2012 10:35:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: from rock.gnat.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (rock.gnat.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id R+ITrtFrVxFt; Wed, 9 May 2012 10:35:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 10C091C6738; Wed, 9 May 2012 10:35:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 9B4C3145616; Wed, 9 May 2012 07:35:37 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 09 May 2012 14:35:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Mark Kettenis Cc: macro@codesourcery.com, gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [RFA 1/2] mips: Switch inferior function calls to ON_STACK method. Message-ID: <20120509143537.GH15555@adacore.com> References: <201205042118.q44LIh3p018153@glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl> <201205051144.q45Bitv4006357@glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl> <20120508160542.GB15555@adacore.com> <20120508204257.GC15555@adacore.com> <20120508220805.GD15555@adacore.com> <201205090823.q498Njc7019605@glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <201205090823.q498Njc7019605@glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) 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: 2012-05/txt/msg00272.txt.bz2 I have now checked this patch in. > Not too long ago, Jan Kratochvil pointed out a problem with > AT_ENTRY_POINT. Yeah - I thought we had fixed that by switching the x86/amd64 targets to using ON_STACK. But then when I grep'ed around, I didn't find that. So I thought perhaps we went a different route, because I was sure we had checked a fix in. But in fact, reviewing the history, I think that this issue is still open, probably one of these low-priority issues that one looks at when there is free moment. In my opinion, the point about not being able to write the breakpoint if the program is executed from ROM, combined with the fact that entry points may have CFI info, clinches it. OK - now that this is out of the way, which comments did we want to add? -- Joel