Re: [RFC/TileGX 4/6]use skip_prologue_using_sal for skipping prologue

[Joel Brobecker <brobecker at adacore dot com>]

On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 05:29:03PM +0800, Jiong Wang wrote:
> use skip_prologue_using_sal, instead of old find_pc_line, for skip prologue
> 
> gdb/ChangeLog:
> 
>        * tilegx-tdep.c (tilegx_skip_prologue): Use skip_prologue_using_sal.
> 
> please review.
> 
> ---
> Regards,
> Jiong
> Tilera Corporation.
> 

> ---
>  gdb/tilegx-tdep.c |   22 +++++++++++-----------
>  1 files changed, 11 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/gdb/tilegx-tdep.c b/gdb/tilegx-tdep.c
> index 638be6c..7f36bed 100644
> --- a/gdb/tilegx-tdep.c
> +++ b/gdb/tilegx-tdep.c
> @@ -731,28 +731,28 @@ tilegx_analyze_prologue (struct gdbarch* gdbarch,
>  /* This is the implementation of gdbarch method skip_prologue.  */
>  
>  static CORE_ADDR
> -tilegx_skip_prologue (struct gdbarch *gdbarch, CORE_ADDR pc)
> +tilegx_skip_prologue (struct gdbarch *gdbarch, CORE_ADDR start_pc)

This is not an objection, but IMO "start_pc" is more confusing
than "pc". I would have understood better the change if it was
done to match the name used in the gdbarch_skip_prologue_ftype,
but there it uses "ip" (which, frankly, isn't great either).
This is highly subjective, so feel free to ignore.

> +      CORE_ADDR post_prologue_pc
> +        = skip_prologue_using_sal (gdbarch, func_start);
> +      if (post_prologue_pc != 0)
> +        return max (start_pc, post_prologue_pc);

Can you add an empty line between the variable declarations,
and the rest of the code? (this is a GDB coding convention).

>    return tilegx_analyze_prologue (gdbarch,
> -				  pc, pc + 8 * TILEGX_BUNDLE_SIZE_IN_BYTES,
> +                                  start_pc,
> +                                  start_pc + 8 * TILEGX_BUNDLE_SIZE_IN_BYTES,
The indentation should be done using tabs first, and then spaces
if necessary. Again, a GDB convention.

Thanks,
-- 
Joel