This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [RFA] sh-tdep.c: New patch solving gdb1291.exp (was Re: [RFA] Fix PR tdep/1291, SH prologue scanning bug)
- From: Corinna Vinschen <vinschen at redhat dot com>
- To: gdb-patches at sources dot redhat dot com
- Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2004 11:42:10 +0100
- Subject: Re: [RFA] sh-tdep.c: New patch solving gdb1291.exp (was Re: [RFA] Fix PR tdep/1291, SH prologue scanning bug)
- References: <200402192344.38974.fnf@ninemoons.com> <20040225163336.GY1587@cygbert.vinschen.de>
- Reply-to: gdb-patches at sources dot redhat dot com
Ping?
Corinna
On Feb 25 17:33, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> On Feb 19 23:44, Fred Fish wrote:
> > This patch fixes the bug reported in PR 1291. It is based on the suggested
> > patch included in the PR. I believe it is small enough to not need a
> > copyright assignment, but recent events may have changed that. :-(
> >
> > -Fred
> >
> > 2004-02-19 Fred Fish <fnf@redhat.com>
> >
> > Fix for PR tdep/1291 as suggested by inaba@src.ricoh.co.jp
> > * sh-tdep.c (IS_MOV_R3): Rename to IS_MOV_IMM_R3 and fix pattern.
> > (IS_ADD_R3SP): Rename to IS_ADD_R3_SP for consistency.
> > (IS_MOVW_R1): New macro.
> > (IS_MOVL_R1): New macro.
> > (IS_SUB_R1_SP): New macro.
> > (sh_analyze_prologue): Add r1_val local var and initialize to zero.
> > Use IS_MOVW_R1, IS_MOVL_R1, and IS_SUB_R1_SP to recognize use of
> > stack allocation via constant loaded into r1.
>
> I've looked into this one and found that there's a very simple patch
> to solve that issue. Basically the evaluation of the memory address
> to access in PC relative addressing was misbehaving. The below patch
> evaluates the PC relative memory location now exactly according to the
> descriptions of the PC relative addressing modes with 8 bit displacement
> in the official SH documentation:
>
> FOO.w @(disp:8,PC):
>
> displacement = (instruction & 0xff) << 1;
> address = (PC + 4) + displacement;
>
> FOO.l @(disp:8,PC):
>
> displacement = (instruction & 0xff) << 2;
> address = ((PC & 0xfffffffc) + 4) + displacement;
>
> I checked the entire testsuite against sh2, sh2e, sh3, sh4 and sh4-nofpu.
> In all cases, the FAIL count has been reduced by exactly one, the FAIL
> from gdb1291.exp.
>
> Is that ok to checkin?
>
>
> Corinna
>
> * sh-tdep.c (sh_analyze_prologue): Align PC relative addressing
> to official documentation.
>
> Index: sh-tdep.c
> ===================================================================
> RCS file: /cvs/src/src/gdb/sh-tdep.c,v
> retrieving revision 1.165
> diff -u -p -r1.165 sh-tdep.c
> --- sh-tdep.c 20 Feb 2004 00:16:16 -0000 1.165
> +++ sh-tdep.c 25 Feb 2004 15:47:32 -0000
> @@ -440,9 +440,9 @@ sh_analyze_prologue (CORE_ADDR pc, CORE_
> if (reg < 14)
> {
> sav_reg = reg;
> - offset = (((inst & 0xff) ^ 0x80) - 0x80) << 1;
> + offset = (inst & 0xff) << 1;
> sav_offset =
> - read_memory_integer (((pc + 4) & ~3) + offset, 2);
> + read_memory_integer ((pc + 4) + offset, 2);
> }
> }
> }
> @@ -450,13 +450,13 @@ sh_analyze_prologue (CORE_ADDR pc, CORE_
> {
> if (sav_reg < 0)
> {
> - reg = (inst & 0x0f00) >> 8;
> + reg = GET_TARGET_REG (inst);
> if (reg < 14)
> {
> sav_reg = reg;
> - offset = (((inst & 0xff) ^ 0x80) - 0x80) << 1;
> + offset = (inst & 0xff) << 2;
> sav_offset =
> - read_memory_integer (((pc + 4) & ~3) + offset, 4);
> + read_memory_integer (((pc & 0xfffffffc) + 4) + offset, 4);
> }
> }
> }
>
> --
> Corinna Vinschen
> Cygwin Developer
> Red Hat, Inc.
--
Corinna Vinschen
Cygwin Developer
Red Hat, Inc.