From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 6509 invoked by alias); 1 May 2003 21:49:20 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 6501 invoked from network); 1 May 2003 21:49:20 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO neon-gw.transmeta.com) (63.209.4.196) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 1 May 2003 21:49:20 -0000 Received: (from root@localhost) by neon-gw.transmeta.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA31735; Thu, 1 May 2003 14:49:15 -0700 Received: from mailhost.transmeta.com(10.1.1.15) by neon-gw.transmeta.com via smap (V2.1) id xma031705; Thu, 1 May 03 14:49:08 -0700 Received: from casey.transmeta.com (casey.transmeta.com [10.10.25.22]) by deepthought.transmeta.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h41LnCa09254; Thu, 1 May 2003 14:49:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from dje@localhost) by casey.transmeta.com (8.9.3/8.7.3) id OAA08912; Thu, 1 May 2003 14:49:12 -0700 From: Doug Evans MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <16049.38488.94378.161876@casey.transmeta.com> Date: Thu, 01 May 2003 21:49:00 -0000 To: Andrew Cagney Cc: gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: Inferior function call command set In-Reply-To: <3EB1916D.7020102@redhat.com> References: <3EB16A02.9080904@redhat.com> <16049.36280.775609.622335@casey.transmeta.com> <3EB1916D.7020102@redhat.com> X-SW-Source: 2003-05/txt/msg00004.txt.bz2 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.