From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-return-11299-listarch-gdb=sources.redhat.com@sources.redhat.com>
Received: (qmail 20888 invoked by alias); 27 Nov 2002 21:13:58 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gdb-subscribe@sources.redhat.com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb/>
List-Post: <mailto:gdb@sources.redhat.com>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-help@sources.redhat.com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: gdb-owner@sources.redhat.com
Received: (qmail 20879 invoked from network); 27 Nov 2002 21:13:56 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO hub.ott.qnx.com) (209.226.137.76)
  by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 27 Nov 2002 21:13:56 -0000
Received: from smtp.ott.qnx.com (smtp.ott.qnx.com [10.0.2.158])
	by hub.ott.qnx.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA08652
	for <gdb@sources.redhat.com>; Wed, 27 Nov 2002 16:09:24 -0500
Received: from catdog ([10.4.2.2]) by smtp.ott.qnx.com (8.8.8/8.6.12) with SMTP id QAA02842 for <gdb@sources.redhat.com>; Wed, 27 Nov 2002 16:04:52 -0500
Message-ID: <076a01c29659$d7e41520$0202040a@catdog>
From: "Kris Warkentin" <kewarken@qnx.com>
To: <gdb@sources.redhat.com>
References: <200211272021.PAA04606@hub.ott.qnx.com>
Subject: Re: ARM stack alignment on hand called functions 
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 13:13:00 -0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106
X-SW-Source: 2002-11/txt/msg00396.txt.bz2

> Forwarded From: Richard Earnshaw <rearnsha@arm.com>
> > > Can I suggest downloading a current GDB snap and find out if the
problem
> > > is still present (and if it isn't, follow through with a patch)?
> > > Otherwize this will slip through the cracks, only to re-bite you (and
> > > others) later :-(
> > >
> > > Andrew
> > >
> > >
> >
> > I can see no evidence that the current code is correct either, so
perhaps
> > we should file a PR with all this info.
> >
> > R.

Sorry about the late reply...I had missed this in purging my email.  I used
the arm_push_arguments() : arm-tdep.c from your head branch in isolation and
observed the same problem.  When I forced an sp alignment at the top of
arm_push_arguments(), it worked fine.  Now I wonder, however, if " sp =
(sp - 3) & ~3 " is too simplistic of a fix?  Can we assume that arm will
always have 4 byte alignment?  2) Can we assume that arm stacks will always
grow downward?  I'm thinking yes to the direction but no to the alignment so
perhaps we should do a

#define STACK_ALIGN_SIZE 4

in tm-arm.h and then do:

sp = (sp - STACK_ALIGN_SIZE + 1) & ~(STACK_ALIGN_SIZE - 1);

????

Kris