RE: [Patch] MIPS FDE deletion

["Moore, Catherine" <Catherine_Moore at mentor dot com>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Maciej W. Rozycki [mailto:macro@imgtec.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 19, 2016 10:28 AM
> To: Moore, Catherine
> Cc: binutils@sourceware.org; gcc@gcc.gnu.org; Richard Sandiford
> Subject: 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?
> 

This is a follow-on patch to fix failures in the GDB MIPS16 thunk tests.   I've now augmented the test case to handle the "__call_stub_foo" case.
Does this look to commit?
Thanks,
Catherine

Attachment: fde.cl
Description: fde.cl

Attachment: fde.patch
Description: fde.patch