From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Andrew Cagney <ac131313@cygnus.com>
To: Daniel Jacobowitz <dmj+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
Subject: Re: [rfa] mips heuristic_proc_start fix
Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2001 14:35:00 -0000
Message-id: <3B4E1810.2030807@cygnus.com>
References: <20010706112010.A5578@nevyn.them.org> <3B46030B.2010007@cygnus.com> <20010706113232.A6209@nevyn.them.org> <20010706114028.A6366@nevyn.them.org> <3B4D4FC6.6090003@cygnus.com> <20010712121358.A25739@nevyn.them.org> <3B4E1277.8090003@cygnus.com> <20010712141905.A29671@nevyn.them.org>
X-SW-Source: 2001-07/msg00313.html

> 
> Nope!  We just read pc off the stack.  If the PC is legitimate in the
> first place, none of these nasty loops are a problem.  My pc was 0x2;
> that's bad, but not cause for gdb to die.  What'd you say to a warning
> and early return?


(Technically, before the call to ADDR_BITS_REMOVE() both 3 and 1 are 
valid, after 2 is valid - MIPS16 code.  :-)

I think just having the one message is easier.  As the comment notes:

                 /* This actually happens frequently in embedded
                    development, when you first connect to a board
                    and your stack pointer and pc are nowhere in
                    particular.  This message needs to give people
                    in that situation enough information to
                    determine that it's no big deal.  */

so any other message would need to be just as long.

	Andrew