From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 15792 invoked by alias); 28 Jul 2008 20:13:40 -0000 Received: (qmail 15784 invoked by uid 22791); 28 Jul 2008 20:13:39 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from NaN.false.org (HELO nan.false.org) (208.75.86.248) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Mon, 28 Jul 2008 20:13:14 +0000 Received: from nan.false.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1C54A98215; Mon, 28 Jul 2008 20:13:13 +0000 (GMT) Received: from caradoc.them.org (22.svnf5.xdsl.nauticom.net [209.195.183.55]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E58E098100; Mon, 28 Jul 2008 20:13:12 +0000 (GMT) Received: from drow by caradoc.them.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1KNZ5k-00013v-6f; Mon, 28 Jul 2008 16:13:12 -0400 Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2008 20:29:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Aleksandar Ristovski Cc: gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: PowerPC prologue analysis Message-ID: <20080728201312.GA3911@caradoc.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Aleksandar Ristovski , gdb@sources.redhat.com References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2008-05-11) X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2008-07/txt/msg00281.txt.bz2 On Mon, Jul 28, 2008 at 04:09:54PM -0400, Aleksandar Ristovski wrote: > Hello, > > In the code, in rs6000-tdep.c around line 3334, there is a comment stating: > > /* if != -1, fdata.saved_gpr is the smallest number of saved_gpr. > All gpr's from saved_gpr to gpr31 are saved. */ > > I am, however, witnessing a function that appears to be saving r30, but not r31 (see the disassembly below). This, in turn, causes gdb to unwind r31 from a 'saved' area even though the area does not exist. > > I am not very familiar with PowerPC ABI, but from what I gather reading > the "function call" section, but can not see where is it stated that if > r30 is saved, then r31 must be saved too? But again, I haven't studied the > ABI very thoroughly and might be missing that line. Might want to look at this patch: http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2007-12/msg00111.html -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery