From: Andrew Cagney <ac131313@cygnus.com>
To: Richard.Earnshaw@arm.com
Cc: gdb@sources.redhat.com
Subject: Re: multi-arch and CALL_DUMMY_BREAKPOINT_OFFSET
Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2002 12:09:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <3C66D384.5080102@cygnus.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <200202081134.LAA07778@cam-mail2.cambridge.arm.com>
> I guess I'm going to find several things like this...
> Well it appears that in a multi-arch gdb (even at level 1),
> CALL_DUMMY_BREAKPOINT_OFFSET can only be a constant for any particular
> architecture. This is a problem, because on the ARM it is currently a
> function that returns one of two values depending on whether the
> call-dummy stub has to be ARM code or Thumb code. Note that both types of
> code can exist within a single application and it is not always safe to
> assume that every function is interworking safe.
Oops :-( People keep finding things I thought would be constant but are
not.
> I guess I could re-write the whole of the call-dummy stuff so that
> appropriate breakpoints are built in, but that is certainly going to be
> non-trivial.
>
> Any suggestions? Can I diddle with the gdbarch setting dynamically -- eg
> by calling gdbarch_set_call_dummy_breakpoint_offset() from within
> arm_fix_call_dummy()? It's quite gross, but it might work.
Two suggestions:
Replace CALL_DUMMY_BREAKPOINT_OFFSET and CALL_DUMMY_BREAKPOINT_OFFSET_P
with a predicate function (``F:'')? The predicate mechanism was only
added recently. I have a feeling that while this looks good, it isn't
as easy as it seems :-(
Introduce a new method (``f:'') that, for legacy code, uses
CALL_DUMMY_BREAKPOINT_OFFSET? Deprecate (ARI / bug report) the old
CALL_DUMMY_BREAKPOINT_OFFSET variable.
> Long term it would probably be better to rewrite the call-dummy handling
> to remove the covert variable that is used to communicate between the
> various call-dummy stubs, but I'd rather not do that now.
/* CALL_DUMMY is an array of words (REGISTER_SIZE), but each word
is in host byte order. Before calling FIX_CALL_DUMMY, we byteswap it
and remove any extra bytes which might exist because ULONGEST is
bigger than REGISTER_SIZE.
NOTE: This is pretty wierd, as the call dummy is actually a
sequence of instructions. But CISC machines will have
to pack the instructions into REGISTER_SIZE units (and
so will RISC machines for which INSTRUCTION_SIZE is not
REGISTER_SIZE).
NOTE: This is pretty stupid. CALL_DUMMY should be in strict
target byte order. */
You would not be alone.
Andrew
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2002-02-10 20:09 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2002-02-08 3:35 Richard Earnshaw
2002-02-10 12:09 ` Andrew Cagney [this message]
2002-02-12 6:28 ` Richard Earnshaw
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=3C66D384.5080102@cygnus.com \
--to=ac131313@cygnus.com \
--cc=Richard.Earnshaw@arm.com \
--cc=gdb@sources.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