This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
RE: [RFC] About arm-tdep.c arm_in_function_epilogue_p function
- From: Richard Earnshaw <rearnsha at arm dot com>
- To: Pierre Muller <pierre dot muller at ics-cnrs dot unistra dot fr>
- Cc: "'Daniel Jacobowitz'" <dan at codesourcery dot com>, "'Ulrich Weigand'" <uweigand at de dot ibm dot com>, gdb-patches at sourceware dot org
- Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2010 13:27:37 +0000
- Subject: RE: [RFC] About arm-tdep.c arm_in_function_epilogue_p function
- References: <002701cb83f6$30b394e0$921abea0$@muller@ics-cnrs.unistra.fr> <20101116000346.GN8573@caradoc.them.org> <000a01cb8710$bcda4a00$368ede00$@muller@ics-cnrs.unistra.fr>
On Thu, 2010-11-18 at 12:07 +0100, Pierre Muller wrote:
> Hi,
>
>
> On Sun, Nov 14, 2010 at 01:19:29PM +0100, Pierre Muller wrote:
> > >>> Furthermore, found_return isn't used
> > >>> anymore in that function.
> > >>> Isn't the correct code
> > >>> found_stack_adjust = 1;
>
> > I'm pretty sure you're right. I'm not set up at the moment to test
> > patches on ARM, but if anyone reading this is, then I'd approve
> > that change.
>
> I was able to compile and run the testsuite on an arm linux
> machine, processor type armv7l.
> Unfortunately, the testsuite seems to never trigger this instruction.
> (Checked by adding some specific output if the code triggers,
> not found in gdb.log after testsuite completion.)
> So I think we should rather leave the decision to Ulrich,
> as he seems much more involved in the arm target, no?
Why don't you just post a patch? Then we can assess it as we would all
other patches. The comments in the code at this point clearly don't
match the code, so something certainly needs fixing.
R.