From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 31315 invoked by alias); 18 Apr 2002 22:29:21 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 31299 invoked from network); 18 Apr 2002 22:29:20 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO localhost.redhat.com) (216.138.202.10) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 18 Apr 2002 22:29:20 -0000 Received: from cygnus.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C780A3D1A; Thu, 18 Apr 2002 18:29:29 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <3CBF48C9.30201@cygnus.com> Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2002 15:29:00 -0000 From: Andrew Cagney User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; NetBSD macppc; en-US; rv:0.9.9) Gecko/20020328 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "David S. Miller" Cc: mec@shout.net, fnasser@redhat.com, cagney@cygnus.com, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix xfail Sparc pattern References: <200204181606.g3IG6U914843@duracef.shout.net> <3CBEF272.3060500@cygnus.com> <20020418.145531.68100471.davem@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2002-04/txt/msg00613.txt.bz2 David, note the e-mail below: > AFAIK, generic dummy frames work only with the AT_ENTRY mechanism. > > But for 32 bit SPARC ABI we need ON_STACK, see > http://sourceware.cygnus.com/ml/gdb/1999-q4/msg00064.html > http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb-patches/2000-05/msg00041.html > for an explanation. > > I am afraid that we have to extend the generic dummy frame code to allow > ON_STACK, if we want to use generic dummy frames for SPARC. > > >> Hello, >> >> If I remember one of those unwritten ``grand plans'' correctly, the >> intent is to have all targets switched to ``generic dummy frames''. True? >> >> Among other things, generic dummy frames do not save/restore registers >> on the target stack (instead they are cached locally) and this should >> improve the overall performance of an inferior function call. >> >> Anyway, the thing that prompts this is PC_IN_CALL_DUMMY(PC, SP, FP). >> There are several implementations. Only two: >> >> - generic: looks for the FP in the list of dummy frames >> - stack: looks for PC in [FP..SP) >> >> require the SP/FP parameters. I've a patch to fix the first one (search >> for the PC). If the ARM, SPARC and i386 can switch to generic dummy >> frames then those parameters can be eliminated and all calls simplified. >> >> Any chance of having these converted? >> >> Andrew >> >> >> > > >