Re: [RFA] MIPS/GDB: Fix the handling of MIPS16 thunks

["Maciej W. Rozycki" <macro@codesourcery.com>]

On Thu, 12 Apr 2012, Richard Sandiford wrote:

> >  Did you actually add this unwind information for both the mips16.S pieces 
> > and the compiler generated bits
> 
> Yes.  But like I say, the fix was only (suppoed to be) for what you
> called call/return stubs, i.e. those in which the stub JALs to the target,
> fiddles with the return value afterwards, then JRs back to the caller.

 OK, just wanted to be sure.

 BTW, do you also find the choice of "__call_stub_" and "__call_stub_fp_" 
for function prefixes unfortunate?  You can't really tell them apart in 
all cases except by interpreting code as you can have a valid user 
function starting with "fp_" -- this is not a reserved namespace, unlike 
anything starting with "_".  These should really be "__call_stub_" and 
"__call_fp_stub_" or whatever, one just shouldn't be a substring of the 
other, sigh...

> It wasn't intended to touch pure "run this code first" stubs like...
> 
> > (how about the PIC stubs produced by LD?)?  
> 
> ...these.

 Ack.  They're mostly handled by GDB already anyway.

> > Does that happen to address the problem I reported here:
> >
> > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-12/msg01067.html
> 
> 'Fraid not.  It was a separate problem.

 Any chance you'll be able to look into it anytime soon?  I can cope with 
the patch I proposed there, but people may prefer an in-tree solution and 
it doesn't look like I'll have time in the near future to work on anything 
like what you've outlined instead of my simple solution.

  Maciej