From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-patches-return-89946-listarch-gdb-patches=sources.redhat.com@sourceware.org>
Received: (qmail 29718 invoked by alias); 17 Apr 2012 14:33:52 -0000
Received: (qmail 29704 invoked by uid 22791); 17 Apr 2012 14:33:51 -0000
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-4.9 required=5.0	tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,KHOP_RCVD_TRUST,KHOP_THREADED,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_YE,TW_OV
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from mail-qc0-f169.google.com (HELO mail-qc0-f169.google.com) (209.85.216.169)    by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Tue, 17 Apr 2012 14:33:18 +0000
Received: by qcsd16 with SMTP id d16so4459338qcs.0        for <gdb-patches@sourceware.org>; Tue, 17 Apr 2012 07:33:18 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.224.86.208 with SMTP id t16mr21188279qal.16.1334673198235; Tue, 17 Apr 2012 07:33:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.229.136.69 with HTTP; Tue, 17 Apr 2012 07:33:18 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <4F8D4AC8.6010402@codesourcery.com>
References: <20120410202953.GA23862@intel.com>	<4F8D4AC8.6010402@codesourcery.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2012 14:41:00 -0000
Message-ID: <CAMe9rOr0G84_KHV-MYmyWgKVwCdpqWmQes-8+jACkgYhJE9DgQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: PATCH: Also check for `movl %esp, %ebp' for x32
From: "H.J. Lu" <hjl.tools@gmail.com>
To: Yao Qi <yao@codesourcery.com>
Cc: GDB <gdb-patches@sourceware.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-IsSubscribed: yes
Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gdb-patches.sourceware.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gdb-patches-subscribe@sourceware.org>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gdb-patches@sourceware.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org
X-SW-Source: 2012-04/txt/msg00481.txt.bz2

On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 3:49 AM, Yao Qi <yao@codesourcery.com> wrote:
> On 04/11/2012 04:29 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>> - =A0 =A0 =A0 && memcmp (buf, mov_rsp_rbp_2, 3) !=3D 0)
>> + =A0 =A0 =A0 && memcmp (buf, mov_rsp_rbp_2, 3) !=3D 0
>> + =A0 =A0 =A0 && (gdbarch_ptr_bit (gdbarch) =3D=3D 64
>> + =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 || (memcmp (buf, mov_rsp_rbp_1 + 1, 2) !=3D 0
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0^^
>> + =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 && memcmp (buf, mov_rsp_rbp_2 + 1, 2) !=3D=
 0)))
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 ^^
>
> I don't understand these two constants "2" here. =A0Does this mean the
> encoding of `movl %esp, %ebp' is { 0x48, 0x89 } and { 0x48, 0x8b }? =A0If

movl %esp, %ebp is 0x89, 0xe5 or 0x8b, 0xec.

> my understand is correct, why don't we define two new array
> "movl_esp_ebp_1" and "movl_esp_ebp_2"? which is easier to read/understand.
>

I don't see it is necessary since the difference of movl and movq is
the 0x48 REX prefix.

--=20
H.J.