From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Andrew Cagney <ac131313@cygnus.com>
To: Jonathan Larmour <jlarmour@redhat.com>
Cc: Kevin Buettner <kevinb@cygnus.com>, gdb@sources.redhat.com
Subject: Re: SH breakpoint problem
Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2001 14:28:00 -0000
Message-id: <3B73007B.6090605@cygnus.com>
References: <3B6F5625.ADBD6F53@redhat.com> <1010807224211.ZM23418@ocotillo.lan> <orofprp2x7.fsf@feijoada.lsd.ic.unicamp.br> <1010808054531.ZM26428@ocotillo.lan> <3B72E91A.7FB86E08@redhat.com> <1010809202926.ZM12327@ocotillo.lan> <3B72FB2D.F62163BB@redhat.com>
X-SW-Source: 2001-08/msg00095.html

> 
> This would be defined for the whole SH architecture then. What
> ramifications would it have? i.e. what would/could break?
> 
> It does seem a bit odd that after going to lengths to analyze the prologue
> etc. to determine the right address, it goes and basically ignores that in
> favour of the debug info. Why did it bother since it already knew the
> address of the start of the function?


Prologue analysis does many things: determines the address of the 
function proper; figures out what registes were saved where; and 
computes the frame base address.

GDB normally prefers debug info (hopefully the compiler knew what it was 
doing - er, except in this case) over hardwired analysis.

Andrew