This is the mail archive of the gdb@sources.redhat.com mailing list for the GDB project.
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |
Other format: | [Raw text] |
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.
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |