From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 28531 invoked by alias); 24 Sep 2004 14:30:06 -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 28512 invoked from network); 24 Sep 2004 14:30:05 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 24 Sep 2004 14:30:05 -0000 Received: from int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (int-mx1.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.254]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.12.11/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i8OEU5m4015184 for ; Fri, 24 Sep 2004 10:30:05 -0400 Received: from localhost.redhat.com (porkchop.devel.redhat.com [172.16.58.2]) by int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i8OEU4r21106; Fri, 24 Sep 2004 10:30:04 -0400 Received: from gnu.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1153728D2; Fri, 24 Sep 2004 10:27:48 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <41542EE3.5020708@gnu.org> Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2004 14:30:00 -0000 From: Andrew Cagney User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; NetBSD macppc; en-GB; rv:1.4.1) Gecko/20040831 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Joel Brobecker Cc: Andrew Cagney , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [mips] Getting rid of heuristic proc_desc References: <20040924001643.GK968@gnat.com> In-Reply-To: <20040924001643.GK968@gnat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2004-09/txt/msg00400.txt.bz2 > I was thinking that it should be possible to merge mips32_skip_prologue > inside mips32_heuristic_proc_desc (what a bad name for this function > now). But I am wondering if this wouldn't make heuristic_proc_desc too > complicated? Yes, I was thinking on similar lines: - just delete mips32_skip_prologue - have mips32_heuristic* return the CORE_ADDR of the end-of-prologue instead of the proc-descr and use that - and yes, rename heuristic* to something more meaningful (scan prologue?) The other thing that affects this is skip_prologue_using_sal, perhaphs MIPS should try using that. > I am thinking also that if we were to inline after_prologue inside > mips_skip_prologue, then maybe this would allow us to make some > simplifications... > > And maybe all three ideas are orthogonal, and should all be applied? > > Hmm.... Not sure which way I should go. Any hunch? Andrew