Re: [PATCH 2/8] Add new gdbarch method, unconditional_branch_address

[Andrew Burgess <andrew.burgess@embecosm.com>]

* Andrew Burgess <andrew.burgess@embecosm.com> [2015-09-18 13:01:57 +0100]:

> * Kevin Buettner <kevinb@redhat.com> [2015-08-19 00:00:02 -0700]:
> 
> > diff --git a/gdb/gdbarch.h b/gdb/gdbarch.h
> > index c1e2c1a..1770960 100644
> > --- a/gdb/gdbarch.h
> > +++ b/gdb/gdbarch.h
> > @@ -924,7 +924,7 @@ extern void set_gdbarch_max_insn_length (struct gdbarch *gdbarch, ULONGEST max_i
> >     If your architecture doesn't need to adjust instructions before
> >     single-stepping them, consider using simple_displaced_step_copy_insn
> >     here.
> > -
> > +  
> >     If the instruction cannot execute out of line, return NULL.  The
> >     core falls back to stepping past the instruction in-line instead in
> >     that case. */
> > @@ -1478,6 +1478,16 @@ typedef int (gdbarch_addressable_memory_unit_size_ftype) (struct gdbarch *gdbarc
> >  extern int gdbarch_addressable_memory_unit_size (struct gdbarch *gdbarch);
> >  extern void set_gdbarch_addressable_memory_unit_size (struct gdbarch *gdbarch, gdbarch_addressable_memory_unit_size_ftype *addressable_memory_unit_size);
> >  
> > +/* Examine instruction at PC.  If instruction at PC is an unconditional
> > +   branch, return the address to which control is transferred when the
> > +   branch is taken.  Return 0 when this method is not implemented by
> > +   architecture, PC refers to an invalid address, or instruction at PC
> > +   is not an unconditional branch. */
> > +
> > +typedef CORE_ADDR (gdbarch_unconditional_branch_address_ftype) (struct gdbarch *gdbarch, CORE_ADDR pc);
> > +extern CORE_ADDR gdbarch_unconditional_branch_address (struct gdbarch *gdbarch, CORE_ADDR pc);
> > +extern void set_gdbarch_unconditional_branch_address (struct gdbarch *gdbarch, gdbarch_unconditional_branch_address_ftype *unconditional_branch_address);

<snip>

> How would you feel about changing the function so that it returned a
> bool and placed the address into a CORE_ADDRESS passed by pointer?

Or I could actually spot your revised patch and see you've already
done this :-/

Sorry for the noise.
Andrew