This is the mail archive of the mailing list for the binutils 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: [Patch] MIPS FDE deletion

On Mon, 11 Jan 2016, Moore, Catherine wrote:

> >  Does it mean PR target/53276 has been fixed now?  What was the commit to
> > add .cfi support for the stubs?
> I don't know about the status of PR target/53276.  The commit to add 
> .cfi support for call stubs was this one:
> r184379 | rsandifo | 2012-02-19 08:44:54 -0800 (Sun, 19 Feb 2012) | 7 lines
> gcc/
>         * config/mips/mips.c (mips16_build_call_stub): Add CFI information
>         to stubs with non-sibling calls.
> libgcc/
>         * config/mips/mips16.S (CALL_STUB_RET): Add CFI information.

 Thanks.  I thought it was someting recent, but this is fairly old.

 I saw your patch handles the `fn_stub' case among others and your test 
case included an `__fn_stub_foo' stub too, which is what PR target/53276 
is all about, which is why I thought it may have been resolved and the 
existence of the PR accidentally missed.

 BTW, your test case has a stub of the `fn_stub' kind (`__fn_stub_foo') 
and one of the `call_fp_stub' kind (`__call_stub_fp_foo'), but none of the 
`call_stub' kind (for `foo' it would be called `__call_stub_foo').  The 
latter has AFAICT been addressed by r184379.  Was the omission of the test 
case then deliberate for some reason (why?) or just accidental?


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