From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 27595 invoked by alias); 19 Jul 2010 14:10:44 -0000 Received: (qmail 27579 invoked by uid 22791); 19 Jul 2010 14:10:43 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail.codesourcery.com (HELO mail.codesourcery.com) (38.113.113.100) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Mon, 19 Jul 2010 14:10:35 +0000 Received: (qmail 17707 invoked from network); 19 Jul 2010 14:10:33 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO caradoc.them.org) (dan@127.0.0.2) by mail.codesourcery.com with ESMTPA; 19 Jul 2010 14:10:33 -0000 Date: Mon, 19 Jul 2010 14:10:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Ulrich Weigand Cc: Matthew Gretton-Dann , gdb@sourceware.org, Richard Earnshaw Subject: Re: ARM prologue parsing support for Thumb-2 instructions? Message-ID: <20100719141029.GI6088@caradoc.them.org> References: <1279529477.3466.25.camel@e102319-lin.cambridge.arm.com> <201007191059.o6JAx5r0026004@d12av02.megacenter.de.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <201007191059.o6JAx5r0026004@d12av02.megacenter.de.ibm.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2010-07/txt/msg00073.txt.bz2 On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 12:59:05PM +0200, Ulrich Weigand wrote: > > Trunk thumb_analyze_prologue does have support for Thumb-2. > > Well, all the support for Thumb-2 I can see is in this block: > > else if ((insn & 0xe000) == 0xe000 && cache == NULL) > { > /* Only recognize 32-bit instructions for prologue skipping. */ > > which, as the comment says, is active *only* if this routine is > called from arm_skip_prologue (with cache == NULL), but not if the > routine is called from arm_scan_prologue (with cache != NULL), > which is what is used during unwinding. IIRC, it would not be hard to fill in the missing pieces; I just didn't need them at the time, and could not easily test them. So rather than risk them being wrong, I left them for later. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery