Re: Inferior function call command set

[Doug Evans <dje@transmeta.com>]

Andrew Cagney writes:
 > > Out of curiousity, is there any need to have a runtime choice?
 > 
 > Entry point in ROM, non 1:1 code/stack, ...

Apologies, still confused.
[having spent the last few days buried in the guts of
hand-called-function support such things are very much on my
mind these days]

How does having an entry point in ROM affect things?
It appears to me that all AT_ENTRY_POINT does is use the entry point
address as a magic number that will "never appear" in user code.
[thus if the callee is returning to it you know you're back in the "stub"]

In my port I added the ability for the user to override
CALL_DUMMY_ADDRESS since the entry point is ambiguous/unspecified.
[THAT would be a very welcome addition to the mainline code. :-)]
Pproviding both AT_ENTRY_POINT and ON_STACK is _far_ more effort than
providing the ability to override what gdb uses for CALL_DUMMY_ADDRESS.
Perhaps what I should have done is just hardwire it to 42.  1/2 :-).

No claim is made that there isn't a need for the runtime
stack/entry-point choice.  But I still don't understand the need for it.
[Not that anyone has to spend time clearing up my understanding of course;
but if it's not that much effort, or if other people are also curious ...]

 > An addition to the testsuite is implicit.

Ah.