[ECOS] gdb 'next' problem with i386 HAL

Jonathan Larmour jlarmour@redhat.com
Wed Sep 5 15:17:00 GMT 2001


Mark Salter wrote:
> 
> Ok. And all I was saying is that I have a potential fix which doesn't just
> add 16 to the SP passed to GDB, but rather fixes the SP passed to GDB as
> part of a larger fix.

So it does change the SP - I thoguht you said it didn't :-). I guess we
might have to talk elsewhere about what the larger fix is for, because just
adding interrupt stack switching for exceptions wouldn't be that big I'm
sure (since it's already there for interrupts) so I presume there's
something else, or some complication.

> You said you might try to fix the SP and I wanted
> to let you know that it may be wasted effort. That's all.

Are you fixing it in hal_get_gdb_registers()? If so, I don't think that's
the right place because kernel exceptions should also get a
HAL_SavedRegisters with an accurate SP - it's not just the stub that's
affected.

As it happens, I already checked in a fix for this one issue (internally)
though. I also added the correction for interrupts, but it's probably not
needed actually.

Jifl
-- 
Red Hat, Rustat House, Clifton Road, Cambridge, UK. Tel: +44 (1223) 271062
Maybe this world is another planet's Hell -Aldous Huxley || Opinions==mine



More information about the Ecos-discuss mailing list