This is the mail archive of the gdb-patches@sourceware.org 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]

RE: [PING2] : [RFC/RFA] PING: skip __main


I restarted a testsuite, but I 
won't expect any change because 
main seems to be at a lower address than __main
in the few executables I tested, meaning that
the value in buf will be positive anyhow.


Pierre Muller
Pascal language support maintainer for GDB




-----Message d'origine-----
De?: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org
[mailto:gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org] De la part de Mark Kettenis
Envoyé?: Friday, May 30, 2008 4:58 PM
À?: muller@ics.u-strasbg.fr
Cc?: pedro@codesourcery.com; drow@false.org; gdb-patches@sourceware.org
Objet?: Re: [PING2] : [RFC/RFA] PING: skip __main

> From: "Pierre Muller" <muller@ics.u-strasbg.fr>
> Date: Fri, 30 May 2008 16:46:28 +0200
> 
> +  target_read_memory (pc, &op, 1);
> +  if (op == 0xe8)
> +    {
> +      gdb_byte buf[4];
> +
> +      if (target_read_memory (pc + 1, buf, sizeof buf) == 0)
> +       {
> +         CORE_ADDR call_dest = pc + 5 + extract_unsigned_integer (buf,
4);
>   Just one small question about this line:
> I fear that this line is incorrect,
> shouldn't we use extract_signed_integer here?
> 
>   The address is relative to pc+5 meaning that
> if main is at a higher address than __main,
> buf will contain a negative 4byte integer.

You're absolutely right.  Can you make that change and retest?




Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]