This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [Patch] fix for PR:1291 (Ping Corinna)
- From: "Kris Warkentin" <kewarken at qnx dot com>
- To: "Elena Zannoni" <ezannoni at redhat dot com>
- Cc: "Elena Zannoni" <ezannoni at redhat dot com>, <gdb-patches at sources dot redhat dot com>
- Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2003 10:28:01 -0400
- Subject: Re: [Patch] fix for PR:1291 (Ping Corinna)
- References: <Pine.CYG.4.55.0309161441150.1008@catdog.ott.qnx.com><16240.46973.557418.422147@localhost.redhat.com><002601c3823a$209cd910$6400a8c0@dash><07b401c39415$f4dc7ae0$0202040a@catdog> <16281.9791.565787.650032@localhost.redhat.com>
Here is what I used. Do I need to do something to formally put this in or
is this sufficient?
cheers,
Kris
#include <stdio.h>
main()
{
printf("hello world\n");
sub1();
sub2();
}
sub1()
{
int buf[64];
}
sub2()
{
int buf[65];
}
break sub1
break sub2
run
backtrace
continue
backtrace
Failure:
Breakpoint 1, sub1 () at sh-bt.c:13
13 }
(gdb) bt
#0 sub1 () at sh-bt.c:13
#1 0x0804047c in main () at sh-bt.c:6
#2 0x08040432 in t2 ()
(gdb) c
Continuing.
Breakpoint 2, sub2 () at sh-bt.c:18
18 }
(gdb) bt
#0 sub2 () at sh-bt.c:18
(gdb)
Success:
Breakpoint 1, sub1 () at sh-bt.c:13
13 }
(gdb) bt
#0 sub1 () at sh-bt.c:13
#1 0x0804047c in main () at sh-bt.c:6
(gdb) c
Continuing.
Breakpoint 2, sub2 () at sh-bt.c:18
18 }
(gdb) bt
#0 sub2 () at sh-bt.c:18
#1 0x08040484 in main () at sh-bt.c:7
(gdb)
----- Original Message -----
From: "Elena Zannoni" <ezannoni@redhat.com>
To: "Kris Warkentin" <kewarken@qnx.com>
Cc: "Elena Zannoni" <ezannoni@redhat.com>; <gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com>
Sent: Friday, October 24, 2003 9:16 AM
Subject: Re: [Patch] fix for PR:1291 (Ping Corinna)
> Kris Warkentin writes:
> > Howdy all,
> >
> > Finally got around to building a head branch gdb with Corinna's sh4
work.
> > Excellent job. The backtrace works perfectly now and renders my patch
> > redundant. Someone can probably put this PR to fixed-test.
> >
>
> Could you still come up with a small testcase to be added to gdb.arch?
>
> elena
>
>
> > cheers,
> >
> > Kris
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Kris Warkentin" <kewarken@qnx.com>
> > To: "Elena Zannoni" <ezannoni@redhat.com>
> > Cc: <gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com>
> > Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2003 9:21 PM
> > Subject: Re: [Patch] fix for PR:1291
> >
> >
> > > > kewarken writes:
> > > > > Credit to inaba@src.ricoh.co.jp for his original find and patch
and
> > to
> > > > > Colin Burgess for noting the differences between gcc 2 and 3.
> > > > >
> > > > > ChangeLog:
> > > > >
> > > > > 2003-09-16 Kris Warkentin <kewarken@qnx.com>
> > > > >
> > > > > * sh-tdep.c: Properly detect frame prologues for functions with
> > > > > more than 256 bytes of local variables.
> > > >
> > > > You should give credit to these folks in the changelog entry.
> > >
> > > Certainly.
> > >
> > > > I wonder if this can be captured in a test case? How does your
change
> > > > interacts with Corinna's rewrite?
> > >
> > > I'll take a look at it when I have some more time next week. The
test
> > case
> > > is very simple so I can easily check to see if Corinna's stuff fixes
it.
> > > Unfortunately my available gdb cycles have been extremely low lately
since
> > > we have a lot of critical internal stuff that I've been grabbed for.
> > >
> > > cheers,
> > >
> > > Kris
> > >
> > >
> >
>