* HP/UX 64 need CALL_DUMMY_LOCATION ON_STACK?
@ 2003-01-20 2:08 Andrew Cagney
2003-01-20 3:04 ` Joel Brobecker
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Andrew Cagney @ 2003-01-20 2:08 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gdb-patches
Hello,
In checking various things to do with dummy frames, I noticed this
potential foo-bar.
I recently changed the default for CALL_DUMMY_LOCATION from ON_STACK to
AT_ENTRY. I suspect the HP/PA 64 currently assumes ON_STACK.
Anyone able to check this theory?
Andrew
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: HP/UX 64 need CALL_DUMMY_LOCATION ON_STACK?
2003-01-20 2:08 HP/UX 64 need CALL_DUMMY_LOCATION ON_STACK? Andrew Cagney
@ 2003-01-20 3:04 ` Joel Brobecker
2003-01-20 4:27 ` Andrew Cagney
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Joel Brobecker @ 2003-01-20 3:04 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Andrew Cagney; +Cc: gdb-patches
> I recently changed the default for CALL_DUMMY_LOCATION from ON_STACK to
> AT_ENTRY. I suspect the HP/PA 64 currently assumes ON_STACK.
>
> Anyone able to check this theory?
I'll try to have a look today (thanks for this notice!).
--
Joel
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: HP/UX 64 need CALL_DUMMY_LOCATION ON_STACK?
2003-01-20 3:04 ` Joel Brobecker
@ 2003-01-20 4:27 ` Andrew Cagney
2003-01-28 4:15 ` Joel Brobecker
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Andrew Cagney @ 2003-01-20 4:27 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Joel Brobecker; +Cc: gdb-patches
>> I recently changed the default for CALL_DUMMY_LOCATION from ON_STACK to
>> AT_ENTRY. I suspect the HP/PA 64 currently assumes ON_STACK.
>>
>> Anyone able to check this theory?
>
>
> I'll try to have a look today (thanks for this notice!).
I'd better explain why I think I broke it :-/ I believe the old code
had the sequence:
tm-hppa64.h:
#include "tm-hppa.h"
tm-hppa.h:
#define CALL_DUMMY_LOCATION ON_STACK
#undef CALL_DUMMY_LOCATION
gdbarch.h:
#if !multi-arch
// do nothing with CALL_DUMMY_LOCATION
#endif
inferior.h:
#ifndef CALL_DUMMY_LOCATION
#define CALL_DUMMY_LOCATION ON_STACK
#endif
My change effectively changed the middle one so that CALL_DUMMY_LOCATION
defaults to AT_ENTRY_POINT - good for everyone else, just not for 64 bit
HP/UX.
Andrew
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: HP/UX 64 need CALL_DUMMY_LOCATION ON_STACK?
2003-01-20 4:27 ` Andrew Cagney
@ 2003-01-28 4:15 ` Joel Brobecker
2003-01-28 14:40 ` Andrew Cagney
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Joel Brobecker @ 2003-01-28 4:15 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Andrew Cagney; +Cc: gdb-patches
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1122 bytes --]
Andrew,
I finally had a look at this problem.
> >I'll try to have a look today (thanks for this notice!).
>
> I'd better explain why I think I broke it :-/ I believe the old code
> had the sequence:
>
> tm-hppa64.h:
> #include "tm-hppa.h"
> tm-hppa.h:
> #define CALL_DUMMY_LOCATION ON_STACK
> #undef CALL_DUMMY_LOCATION
I believe you are right. I did a bit of archeology, but could not
find the purpose of this undef.
Before you added the '#define CALL_DUMMY_LOCATION ON_STACK' when you
changed the default value for CALL_DUMMY_LOCATION, there was no such
defined in tm-hppa.h... So the undef was useless, and now seems to
cause some breakage on hppa64.
Short of understanding completely the issues at hand, I simply ran the
testsuite with and without the #undef, and found that that results are
sensibly better without (ie, to my relief, you guess right about hppa64).
I have the following change ready:
2003-01-28 J. Brobecker <brobecker@gnat.com>
* config/pa/tm-hppa64.h (CALL_DUMMY_LOCATION): Remove #undef
causing some regressions due to a change in the default value
for this macro.
--
Joel
[-- Attachment #2: tm-hppa64.h --]
[-- Type: text/plain, Size: 525 bytes --]
Index: config/pa/tm-hppa64.h
===================================================================
RCS file: /cvs/src/src/gdb/config/pa/tm-hppa64.h,v
retrieving revision 1.6
diff -c -3 -p -r1.6 tm-hppa64.h
*** config/pa/tm-hppa64.h 14 Nov 2002 00:25:05 -0000 1.6
--- config/pa/tm-hppa64.h 28 Jan 2003 04:12:36 -0000
*************** call_dummy
*** 217,223 ****
#undef FUNC_LDO_OFFSET
#undef SR4EXPORT_LDIL_OFFSET
#undef SR4EXPORT_LDO_OFFSET
- #undef CALL_DUMMY_LOCATION
#undef REG_STRUCT_HAS_ADDR
--- 217,222 ----
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: HP/UX 64 need CALL_DUMMY_LOCATION ON_STACK?
2003-01-28 4:15 ` Joel Brobecker
@ 2003-01-28 14:40 ` Andrew Cagney
2003-01-30 5:49 ` Joel Brobecker
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Andrew Cagney @ 2003-01-28 14:40 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Joel Brobecker; +Cc: gdb-patches
> I believe you are right. I did a bit of archeology, but could not
> find the purpose of this undef.
>
> Before you added the '#define CALL_DUMMY_LOCATION ON_STACK' when you
> changed the default value for CALL_DUMMY_LOCATION, there was no such
> defined in tm-hppa.h... So the undef was useless, and now seems to
> cause some breakage on hppa64.
>
> Short of understanding completely the issues at hand, I simply ran the
> testsuite with and without the #undef, and found that that results are
> sensibly better without (ie, to my relief, you guess right about hppa64).
>
> I have the following change ready:
>
> 2003-01-28 J. Brobecker <brobecker@gnat.com>
>
> * config/pa/tm-hppa64.h (CALL_DUMMY_LOCATION): Remove #undef
> causing some regressions due to a change in the default value
> for this macro.
Thanks! Definitly check this in.
Andrew
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2003-01-30 5:49 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2003-01-20 2:08 HP/UX 64 need CALL_DUMMY_LOCATION ON_STACK? Andrew Cagney
2003-01-20 3:04 ` Joel Brobecker
2003-01-20 4:27 ` Andrew Cagney
2003-01-28 4:15 ` Joel Brobecker
2003-01-28 14:40 ` Andrew Cagney
2003-01-30 5:49 ` Joel Brobecker
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox