From: Jim Blandy <jimb@redhat.com>
To: Kevin Buettner <kevinb@redhat.com>
Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
Subject: Re: RFA: recognize new instructions in rs6000 prologues
Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2004 16:56:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <vt2oeqjr1ht.fsf@zenia.home> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20040325221648.77308418@saguaro>
Kevin Buettner <kevinb@redhat.com> writes:
> On 24 Mar 2004 10:10:04 -0500
> Jim Blandy <jimb@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > These prologues are generated by a not-yet-released compiler, but the
> > test suite does catch the problem.
> >
> > 2004-02-25 Jim Blandy <jimb@redhat.com>
> >
> > * rs6000-tdep.c (skip_prologue): Recognize moves from argument
> > registers to temp register r0 and byte stores as prologue
> > instructions.
> >
> > *** gdb/rs6000-tdep.c.~2~ 2004-02-25 15:14:13.000000000 -0500
> > --- gdb/rs6000-tdep.c 2004-02-25 15:15:43.000000000 -0500
> > ***************
> > *** 772,777 ****
> > --- 772,785 ----
> >
> > /* store parameters in stack */
> > }
> > + /* Move parameters from argument registers to temporary register. */
> > + else if ((op & 0xfc0007fe) == 0x7c000378 && /* mr(.) Rx,Ry */
> > + (((op >> 21) & 31) >= 3) && /* R3 >= Ry >= R10 */
> > + (((op >> 21) & 31) <= 10) &&
> > + (((op >> 16) & 31) == 0)) /* Rx: scratch register r0 */
> > + {
> > + continue;
> > + }
>
> Is this case really needed? I would have thought that the catchall
> case at the end would handle this situation. I'm concerned that
> adding this case may cause us to overshoot the prologue in some
> circumstances. (Of course, there's a danger of doing that anyway...)
Here's the code for the function in question:
.align 2
.globl arg_passing_test2
.type arg_passing_test2, @function
arg_passing_test2:
.LFB107:
.loc 1 62 0
stwu 1,-64(1)
.LCFI11:
stw 31,60(1)
.LCFI12:
mr 31,1
.LCFI13:
mr 0,3
evstdd 4,16(31)
stw 5,24(31)
stw 7,32(31)
stw 8,36(31)
stw 9,40(31)
stb 0,8(31)
lwz 11,0(1)
lwz 31,-4(11)
mr 1,11
blr
.LFE107:
.size arg_passing_test2, .-arg_passing_test2
The first 'lwz' is the first non-prologue instruction; the stores
above it are argument spills.
You're referring to the catchall case that says that we scan past
unfamiliar, non-branch instructions unless the frame is already set
up, right? This function leaves its return address in LR, so there's
no need to wait for a return address save instruction. And the frame
pointer is set up by the time we see the 'mr 0,3' instruction. So
that catch-all case doesn't apply here.
According to the ABI, upon function entry, r0 is caller-saves, and not
used for passing arguments, so its dead; a move into r0 can't destroy
information. Moving an argument register into it could at worst be an
initialization of a variable that would be done sooner than expected.
But missing those spills is a serious problem. Most users don't
consider their frame 'set up' if GDB displays the arguments as
garbage. :)
(Of course, the best solution would be for GCC to emit location lists.
Then GDB wouldn't need to care whether arguments were spilled or not:
wherever the program was stopped, it would be able to find them.)
> > else if ((op & 0xfc1f0003) == 0xf8010000 || /* std rx,NUM(r1) */
> > (op & 0xfc1f0000) == 0xd8010000 || /* stfd Rx,NUM(r1) */
> > (op & 0xfc1f0000) == 0xfc010000) /* frsp, fp?,NUM(r1) */
> > ***************
> > *** 781,790 ****
> > /* store parameters in stack via frame pointer */
> > }
> > else if (framep &&
> > ! ((op & 0xfc1f0000) == 0x901f0000 || /* st rx,NUM(r1) */
> > ! (op & 0xfc1f0000) == 0xd81f0000 || /* stfd Rx,NUM(r1) */
> > ! (op & 0xfc1f0000) == 0xfc1f0000))
> > ! { /* frsp, fp?,NUM(r1) */
> > continue;
> >
> > /* Set up frame pointer */
> > --- 789,799 ----
> > /* store parameters in stack via frame pointer */
> > }
> > else if (framep &&
> > ! ((op & 0xfc1f0000) == 0x901f0000 || /* st rx,NUM(r31) */
> > ! (op & 0xfc1f0000) == 0x981f0000 || /* stb Rx,NUM(r31) */
> > ! (op & 0xfc1f0000) == 0xd81f0000 || /* stfd Rx,NUM(r31) */
> > ! (op & 0xfc1f0000) == 0xfc1f0000)) /* frsp, fp?,NUM(r31) */
> > ! {
> > continue;
> >
> > /* Set up frame pointer */
>
> This part is okay.
Great, thanks.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2004-03-26 16:56 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2004-03-24 15:11 Jim Blandy
2004-03-26 14:12 ` Kevin Buettner
2004-03-26 16:56 ` Jim Blandy [this message]
2004-03-26 23:39 ` Kevin Buettner
2004-03-29 3:43 ` Jim Blandy
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=vt2oeqjr1ht.fsf@zenia.home \
--to=jimb@redhat.com \
--cc=gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com \
--cc=kevinb@redhat.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox