From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 19128 invoked by alias); 16 Jan 2004 05:43:50 -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 19121 invoked from network); 16 Jan 2004 05:43:49 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO localhost.redhat.com) (65.49.4.239) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 16 Jan 2004 05:43:49 -0000 Received: from gnu.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7F9492B8F; Fri, 16 Jan 2004 00:43:46 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <40077A12.5040306@gnu.org> Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 05:43:00 -0000 From: Andrew Cagney User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; NetBSD macppc; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20030820 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Daniel Jacobowitz Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com, rearnsha@arm.com Subject: Re: RFA/ARM: Switch mode when setting PC References: <20040116035402.GA3215@nevyn.them.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2004-01/txt/msg00406.txt.bz2 > This patch fixes several failures in virtfunc.exp for arm-sim/-mthumb. The > problem is that the non-virtual thunk for pDe->vg() is emitted in ARM mode > and called via _call_via_r2. But the rest of the program is Thumb mode, and > nothing tells the simulator (or target; I haven't tested this on hardware > yet but I expect the same result) to switch to ARM. So it gets very > confused. > > This is somewhat suboptimal in that if you want, for some reason, to call > something marked as an ARM function with Thumb mode enabled you will have to > set $ps yourself _after_ setting $pc. I think it's still a good idea, > though. OK? (sorry, but I don't understand that paragraph - doesn't that code set the $ps after setting the $pc?) The ari contains this yellow card: write pc Replace write_pc() with get_frame_base_address or get_frame_id; at present the inferior function call code still uses this when doing a DECR_PC_AFTER_BREAK the concern is with the way write_pc is being called to perform two different operations: - decrement the pc just after the target stops Arrrg! - jump to a specific address As with an inferior function call or jump. I think it would be better to have two methods so that it's clear that this case only applies when doing a jump. Andrew