Re: Signal Trampoline Frames

[Andrew Cagney <cagney@gnu.org>]

>     > and uses
>    > the arbitrary number 8 for the number of instructions (which makes it
>    > not quite suitable for SPARC).
> 
>    I'm assuming people will increase it (It's like the arbitrary number 16 
>    for the largest possible size of an instruction).
> 
> OK.  Although you must realize that for SPARC we might need to
> increase it to 80 or so.  Then it makes more sense to check only for a
> small number of key instructions I think.

In that case, don't use it.

BTW, what happens if the inferior is interrupted while executing one of 
those 80 instructions?

>     > The whole thing seems a bit
>    > over-engineered to me :-(.
> 
>    In what way?
> 
>    I wrote it after churn out 4 almost identical signal trampolines - so it 
>    works for one type but not for others.  You also haven't seen my test 
>    cases :-)
> 
> My experience is that there is too much variation for a
> one-size-fits-all trampoline recognition function.  I was under the
> impression that there were only two cases where this could be used.
> Turns out I'm wrong.  I still think we run the risk of
> over-engineering this by adding to much knobs if we try to make it
> work for too many slightly different signal tramps.

Right.

It's a helper for a specific, but fairly common, case.  It works for me 
(and appears to work for daniel :-) but is definitly not a one size fits 
all.

Andrew