[commit] Fix overly strict check in arm_skip_stack_protector

[commit] Fix overly strict check in arm_skip_stack_protector

[Ulrich Weigand]

Hello,

the stack protector skipping code didn't work for me because the stack
guard symbol is named __stack_chk_guard@@GLIBC_2.4, but the check in
arm_skip_stack_protector only accepts __stack_chk_guard.

Note that the comment already suggests that any symbol whose name *starts*
with __stack_chk_guard ought to be accepted, so I'm simply changing the
code to match the comment.

Tested on armv7l-linux-gnueabi, fixes all gdb.mi/gdb792.exp failures.
Committed to mainline.

Bye,
Ulrich


ChangeLog:

	* arm-tdep.c (arm_skip_stack_protector): Accept any symbol that
	starts with __stack_chk_guard as stack guard symbol.

diff -urNp gdb-orig/gdb/arm-tdep.c gdb-head/gdb/arm-tdep.c
--- gdb-orig/gdb/arm-tdep.c	2011-02-02 19:44:56.000000000 +0000
+++ gdb-head/gdb/arm-tdep.c	2011-02-03 17:52:22.000000000 +0000
@@ -1296,7 +1296,8 @@ arm_skip_stack_protector(CORE_ADDR pc, s
      instruction sequence is not for stack protector.  If symbol is
      removed, we conservatively think this sequence is for stack protector.  */
   if (stack_chk_guard
-      && strcmp (SYMBOL_LINKAGE_NAME(stack_chk_guard), "__stack_chk_guard"))
+      && strncmp (SYMBOL_LINKAGE_NAME (stack_chk_guard), "__stack_chk_guard",
+		  strlen ("__stack_chk_guard")) != 0)
    return pc;
 
   if (is_thumb)
-- 
  Dr. Ulrich Weigand
  GNU Toolchain for Linux on System z and Cell BE
  Ulrich.Weigand@de.ibm.com