This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: THUMB_FP vs. ARM_FP
- From: Michael Snyder <msnyder at redhat dot com>
- To: Richard dot Earnshaw at arm dot com
- Cc: Michael Snyder <msnyder at cygnus dot com>, rearnsha at arm dot com, gdb-patches at sources dot redhat dot com
- Date: Thu, 05 Sep 2002 11:37:16 -0700
- Subject: Re: THUMB_FP vs. ARM_FP
- Organization: Red Hat, Inc.
- References: <200209051344.g85DiTX06768@pc960.cambridge.arm.com>
Richard Earnshaw wrote:
>
> > By the way, Richard, shouldn't this
> >
> > *************** arm_init_extra_frame_info (int fromleaf,
> > *** 1162,1168 ****
> >
> > callers_sp = read_memory_integer (fi->saved_regs[ARM_SP_REGNUM],
> > REGISTER_RAW_SIZE (ARM_SP_REGNUM));
> > ! fi->extra_info->framereg = ARM_FP_REGNUM;
> > fi->extra_info->framesize = callers_sp - sp;
> > fi->extra_info->frameoffset = fi->frame - sp;
> > }
> > ...be something like this?
> >
> > --- 1162,1171 ----
> >
> > callers_sp = read_memory_integer (fi->saved_regs[ARM_SP_REGNUM],
> > REGISTER_RAW_SIZE (ARM_SP_REGNUM));
> > ! if (arm_pc_is_thumb (fi->pc))
> > ! fi->extra_info->framereg = THUMB_FP_REGNUM;
> > ! else
> > ! fi->extra_info->framereg = ARM_FP_REGNUM;
> > fi->extra_info->framesize = callers_sp - sp;
> > fi->extra_info->frameoffset = fi->frame - sp;
> > }
>
> Probably. The idea of a frame pointer in thumb is a bit strange, given
> that the architecture really dislikes having one, but I see no harm in the
> change, and it's certainly wrong to use the ARM one in Thumb mode.
>
Committed.