From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-return-16998-listarch-gdb=sources.redhat.com@sources.redhat.com>
Received: (qmail 20926 invoked by alias); 25 Jan 2004 23:59:15 -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 20917 invoked from network); 25 Jan 2004 23:59:15 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO nevyn.them.org) (66.93.172.17)
  by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 25 Jan 2004 23:59:15 -0000
Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 4.30 #1 (Debian))
	id 1Aku9q-0002Gb-19
	for <gdb@sources.redhat.com>; Sun, 25 Jan 2004 18:59:14 -0500
Date: Sun, 25 Jan 2004 23:59:00 -0000
From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@mvista.com>
To: gdb@sources.redhat.com
Subject: Re: [RFC] Non-executable stack on SPARC
Message-ID: <20040125235913.GA5120@nevyn.them.org>
Mail-Followup-To: gdb@sources.redhat.com
References: <200401252350.i0PNoB1O021806@elgar.kettenis.dyndns.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <200401252350.i0PNoB1O021806@elgar.kettenis.dyndns.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.1i
X-SW-Source: 2004-01/txt/msg00295.txt.bz2

On Mon, Jan 26, 2004 at 12:50:11AM +0100, Mark Kettenis wrote:
> A while ago, I established that getting inferior function calls on
> SPARC working with a non-executable stack is remarkably simple.  Just
> acknowledging that breakpoint instructions may cause SIGSEGV, as per
> the attached patch, is enough.  However, some people were afraid that
> blindly applying this patch might cause some problems on other
> targets.  I think there are two alternatives:
> 
> 1. Only check for SIGSEGV if the target in question uses "ON_STACK"
>    for its call_dummy_location.
> 
> 2. Add a new method to the architecture vector to check whether a
>    particular signal may have been the result of a breakpoint
>    instruction.  Suggested name & signature:
> 
>    int breakpoint_signal_p (struct gdbarch *gdbarch, int signal)
> 
> Preferences?

I think just the patch you included will be OK.

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
MontaVista Software                         Debian GNU/Linux Developer