From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 9993 invoked by alias); 25 Apr 2002 00:48:21 -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 9981 invoked from network); 25 Apr 2002 00:48:18 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO cygnus.com) (205.180.83.203) by 209.249.29.67 with SMTP; 25 Apr 2002 00:48:18 -0000 Received: from redhat.com (reddwarf.sfbay.redhat.com [172.16.24.50]) by runyon.cygnus.com (8.8.7-cygnus/8.8.7) with ESMTP id RAA19780; Wed, 24 Apr 2002 17:48:06 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <3CC74F72.6B0F8C8B@redhat.com> Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2002 17:48:00 -0000 From: Michael Snyder Organization: Red Hat, Inc. X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "David S. Miller" CC: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [RFA] Improve Sparc epilogue analysis References: <3CC5B3DD.AE14C458@redhat.com> <20020423.235951.23032845.davem@redhat.com> <3CC73C70.A4BBA9D7@redhat.com> <20020424.170539.73357679.davem@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2002-04/txt/msg00990.txt.bz2 "David S. Miller" wrote: > > From: Michael Snyder > Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2002 16:14:56 -0700 > > In this case, I don't believe you got the frameless_p case > right. First, you don't seem to have changed the definition > of SKIP_PROLOGUE_FRAMELESS_P in tm-sparc.h. Second, your > implementation of sparc_prologue_frameless_p is not > functionally equivalent to the old one. If it goes thru > the new, symbolic path, it will not return the same result. > > SKIP_PROLOGUE_FRAMELESS_P died within the past day or two from the > whole GDB tree, perhaps you didn't notice :-) No I didn't. I don't read every message on this list. > > I'd like to ask that you re-review this change, given this, please. The part that's mentioned in the changelog entry is OK, except you can remove sparc_skip_prologue_frameless_p (and say so in the changelog) rather than rewrite it. The parts that are NOT mentioned in the changelog (your changes to the logic in sparc_init_extra_frame_info) are not OK, first because you didn't mention them in the changelog, and second because I can't convince myself that they are right. I'd like you to resubmit this patch with those modifications, please. Michael