Re: gdb & gdbserver for s390 31 & 64 bit

["Denis Joseph Barrow" <DJBARROW at de dot ibm dot com>]

Hi Andrew,

>Just FYI,
>I've zapped this from the ChangeLog:
>
>Index: ChangeLog
>===================================================================
>RCS file: /cvs/src/src/gdb/ChangeLog,v
>retrieving revision 1.1527.2.21.2.1
>diff -u -r1.1527.2.21.2.1 ChangeLog
>--- ChangeLog   2001/09/27 01:08:40     1.1527.2.21.2.1
>+++ ChangeLog   2001/09/28 01:37:24
>@@ -11,10 +11,7 @@
>         * config/s390/s390.mh: Likewise.
>         * config/s390/s390.mt: Likewise.
>         * config/s390/tm-s390.h: Likewise.
>-        * config.in Added definitions for S/390 31 & 64 bit target.
>-       * configure.host: Likewise.
>-       * configure.in: Likewise.
>-       * configure.tgt: Likewise.
>+       * configure.host: Added definitions for S/390 31 & 64 bit target.
>
>          * gdbarch.sh: Fixed CALL_DUMMY_BREAKPOINT_OFFSET to check
>         CALL_DUMMY_BREAKPOINT_OFFSET_P.
>
>The patch didn't contain changes to them (I didn't notice this earlier).
>  I guess they were left overs from an earlier patch.


Yup it was me being sloppy.

>>
>>
>> The tm-sysv4.h patch was simply needed to get the stuff to compile
>> multiarch,
>> I don't think most/all other stuff which uses tm-sysv4.h are compiled
>> multiarch which is
>> why I don't think you've seen this before.
>>  The SKIP_TRAMPOLINE_CODE macro is also defined in gdbarch.h.
>
>Ah.  This problem is only in the trunk.  One less thing to worry about.
>
>Related to this, can you try setting GDB_MULTI_ARCH back to 1
>(GDB_MULTI_ARCH_PARTIAL) from 2 (GDB_MULTI_ARCH_TM) and remove that
>#ifdef, letting me know the result?  Except when debugging,
>GDB_MULTI_ARCH shouldn't be set to GDB_MULTI_ARCH_TM.
>
>I suspect it will be easer to add #undef's to config/s390/tm-linux.h or
>even not include config/tm-linux.h.  Either way, it is a tempoary hack.
>
>BTW, PPC is partial multi-arch and includes config/tm-sysv4.h.

Setting GDB_MULTI_ARCH to 1 in /config/s390.mt & /config/s390x.mt
does work & compile correctly on 31 & 64 bit,
However I think the tm-sysv4.h change should stay.

If you look at the definition in tm-sysv4.h in the code ( see below ) it should
still be identical for PPC even after preprocessing as SKIP_TRAMPOLINE_CODE is still defined for
GDB_MULTI_ARCH_PARTIAL

However there will be a duplicate definitions compile error between gdbarch.h
& tm-sysv4.h if you switch the multi arch level to 2 & you don't put this fix in.
I don't see how this fix can cause problems.

 /* If PC is in a shared library trampoline code, return the PC
    where the function itself actually starts.  If not, return 0.  */
#if (GDB_MULTI_ARCH <= GDB_MULTI_ARCH_PARTIAL)
 #define SKIP_TRAMPOLINE_CODE(pc)  find_solib_trampoline_target (pc)
#endif



D.J. Barrow Gnu/Linux for S/390 kernel developer
eMail: djbarrow@de.ibm.com,barrow_dj@yahoo.com
Phone: +49-(0)7031-16-2583
IBM Germany Lab, Schönaicherstr. 220, 71032 Böblingen


Andrew Cagney <ac131313@cygnus.com> on 28.09.2001 03:39:36

Please respond to Andrew Cagney <ac131313@cygnus.com>

To:   Denis Joseph Barrow/Germany/Contr/IBM@IBMDE
cc:   gdb-patches@sourceware.cygnus.com
Subject:  Re: gdb & gdbserver for s390 31 & 64 bit



Just FYI,

I've zapped this from the ChangeLog:

Index: ChangeLog
===================================================================
RCS file: /cvs/src/src/gdb/ChangeLog,v
retrieving revision 1.1527.2.21.2.1
diff -u -r1.1527.2.21.2.1 ChangeLog
--- ChangeLog   2001/09/27 01:08:40     1.1527.2.21.2.1
+++ ChangeLog   2001/09/28 01:37:24
@@ -11,10 +11,7 @@
         * config/s390/s390.mh: Likewise.
         * config/s390/s390.mt: Likewise.
         * config/s390/tm-s390.h: Likewise.
-        * config.in Added definitions for S/390 31 & 64 bit target.
-       * configure.host: Likewise.
-       * configure.in: Likewise.
-       * configure.tgt: Likewise.
+       * configure.host: Added definitions for S/390 31 & 64 bit target.

          * gdbarch.sh: Fixed CALL_DUMMY_BREAKPOINT_OFFSET to check
         CALL_DUMMY_BREAKPOINT_OFFSET_P.

The patch didn't contain changes to them (I didn't notice this earlier).
  I guess they were left overs from an earlier patch.

enjoy,
Andrew