From d4f10bf20ba9967f65bb3ee589d5d9aa86c7629a Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Mark Kettenis Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2004 22:00:14 +0000 Subject: [PATCH] * dwarf2-frame.c (dwarf2_frame_cache): Deal with a return address column that's "empty" or "same value" when eliminating REG_RA rules. --- gdb/ChangeLog | 6 ++++++ gdb/dwarf2-frame.c | 15 ++++++++++----- 2 files changed, 16 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) diff --git a/gdb/ChangeLog b/gdb/ChangeLog index 7c0ded56f9..63cda6c27c 100644 --- a/gdb/ChangeLog +++ b/gdb/ChangeLog @@ -1,3 +1,9 @@ +2004-02-02 Mark Kettenis + + * dwarf2-frame.c (dwarf2_frame_cache): Deal with a return address + column that's "empty" or "same value" when eliminating REG_RA + rules. + 2004-02-02 Jeff Johnston * breakpoint.h (struct breakpoint): Add new flag, from_tty, diff --git a/gdb/dwarf2-frame.c b/gdb/dwarf2-frame.c index 2c655d9793..22e41071f8 100644 --- a/gdb/dwarf2-frame.c +++ b/gdb/dwarf2-frame.c @@ -661,14 +661,19 @@ dwarf2_frame_cache (struct frame_info *next_frame, void **this_cache) { if (cache->reg[regnum].how == REG_RA) { - if (fs->retaddr_column < fs->regs.num_regs) + /* It seems rather bizarre to specify an "empty" column as + the return adress column. However, this is exactly + what GCC does on some targets. It turns out that GCC + assumes that the return address can be found in the + register corresponding to the return address column. + Incidentally, that's how should treat a return address + column specifying "same value" too. */ + if (fs->retaddr_column < fs->regs.num_regs + && fs->regs.reg[fs->retaddr_column].how != REG_UNSPECIFIED + && fs->regs.reg[fs->retaddr_column].how != REG_SAME_VALUE) cache->reg[regnum] = fs->regs.reg[fs->retaddr_column]; else { - /* It turns out that GCC assumes that if the return - address column is "empty" the return address can be - found in the register corresponding to the return - address column. */ cache->reg[regnum].loc.reg = fs->retaddr_column; cache->reg[regnum].how = REG_SAVED_REG; }