Re: [commit, oops] New function pc_in_dummy_frame(pc)

[Andrew Cagney <ac131313@redhat.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 623 bytes --]

> There is a problem though (and I only noticed after committing it :-().
> 
> The change assumes that all architectures that use generic dummy frames also set PC_IN_CALL_DUMMY to generic_pc_in_call_dummy() (and hence eventually call this new pc_in_dummy_frame).  Problem is, some don't:
>     cris, frv, i386, x86-64
> They instead use pc_in_call_dummy_at_entry_point().  Now, in theory, generic_pc_in_call_dummy() and pc_in_call_dummy_at_entry_point() are equivalent, I'm not going to put money on it though.  Hence, expect a follow up patch to revert a small part of this change.

I've checked in the attached.

Andrew


[-- Attachment #2: diffs --]
[-- Type: text/plain, Size: 2294 bytes --]

2002-11-24  Andrew Cagney  <ac131313@redhat.com>

	* frame.c (set_unwind_by_pc): Revert change below, use
	PC_IN_CALL_DUMMY.
	(get_prev_frame): Ditto.

Index: frame.c
===================================================================
RCS file: /cvs/src/src/gdb/frame.c,v
retrieving revision 1.30
diff -u -r1.30 frame.c
--- frame.c	24 Nov 2002 15:06:08 -0000	1.30
+++ frame.c	24 Nov 2002 15:39:20 -0000
@@ -656,7 +656,11 @@
       *unwind_register = frame_saved_regs_register_unwind;
       *unwind_pc = frame_saved_regs_pc_unwind;
     }
-  else if (pc_in_dummy_frame (pc))
+  /* FIXME: cagney/2002-11-24: Can't yet directly call
+     pc_in_dummy_frame() as some architectures don't set
+     PC_IN_CALL_DUMMY() to generic_pc_in_call_dummy() (remember the
+     latter is implemented by simply calling pc_in_dummy_frame).  */
+  else if (PC_IN_CALL_DUMMY (pc, 0, 0))
     {
       *unwind_register = dummy_frame_register_unwind;
       *unwind_pc = dummy_frame_pc_unwind;
@@ -694,7 +698,11 @@
      has previously set it.  This is really somewhat bogus.  The
      initialization, as seen in create_new_frame(), should occur
      before the INIT function has been called.  */
-  if (USE_GENERIC_DUMMY_FRAMES && pc_in_dummy_frame (pc))
+  /* FIXME: cagney/2002-11-24: Can't yet directly call
+     pc_in_dummy_frame() as some architectures don't set
+     PC_IN_CALL_DUMMY() to generic_pc_in_call_dummy() (remember the
+     latter is implemented by simply calling pc_in_dummy_frame).  */
+  if (USE_GENERIC_DUMMY_FRAMES && PC_IN_CALL_DUMMY (pc, 0, 0))
     /* NOTE: cagney/2002-11-11: Does this even occure?  */
     type = DUMMY_FRAME;
   else
@@ -975,8 +983,11 @@
      has previously set it.  This is really somewhat bogus.  The
      initialization, as seen in create_new_frame(), should occur
      before the INIT function has been called.  */
-  if (USE_GENERIC_DUMMY_FRAMES
-      && pc_in_dummy_frame (prev->pc))
+  /* FIXME: cagney/2002-11-24: Can't yet directly call
+     pc_in_dummy_frame() as some architectures don't set
+     PC_IN_CALL_DUMMY() to generic_pc_in_call_dummy() (remember the
+     latter is implemented by simply calling pc_in_dummy_frame).  */
+  if (USE_GENERIC_DUMMY_FRAMES && PC_IN_CALL_DUMMY (prev->pc, 0, 0))
     prev->type = DUMMY_FRAME;
   else
     {