From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 14963 invoked by alias); 11 Oct 2004 04:10:56 -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 14955 invoked from network); 11 Oct 2004 04:10:55 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 11 Oct 2004 04:10:55 -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 i9B4AtwG027763 for ; Mon, 11 Oct 2004 00:10:55 -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 i9B4Apr17772; Mon, 11 Oct 2004 00:10:52 -0400 Received: from gnu.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8691F28CD; Mon, 11 Oct 2004 00:10:32 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <416A07B8.8090609@gnu.org> Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2004 04:10:00 -0000 From: Andrew Cagney User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; NetBSD macppc; en-GB; rv:1.4.1) Gecko/20041009 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Joel Brobecker Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [RFC/mips] Proposal for inlining heuristic_proc_desc a bit... References: <20041011030407.GC26446@gnat.com> In-Reply-To: <20041011030407.GC26446@gnat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2004-10/txt/msg00188.txt.bz2 > Hello Andrew, > > what would you think of something like this. It's just a concept, > it hasn't been compiled nor tested, but the idea is to remove the > call to heuristic_proc_desc() in mips_insn32_frame_cache() by a > a direct call to mips32_scan_prologue(). The same would be applied > to mips16. > > The two things that are not obvious are: > > . Where should the SP be computed: in the caller ofo scan_prologue, > or inside scan_prologue. I chose the latter. Yes. One block of code with all the heuristics. > . Should the scanning limit (200 bytes) be checked in the caller, > or inside scan_prologue. Again, I chose the latter. Yes (although I think that limit is bogus :-). > This is mostly to avoid duplicating this code. What do you think? Consider them pre approved. > You know, heuristic_proc_desc() is in grave danger of dying :-). > I have have a couple of things I'd like to work on first, but then > it should be ripe for removal. Andrew