This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: arm_addr_bits_remove
- From: "Jim Blandy" <jimb at red-bean dot com>
- To: "Pedro Alves" <pedro at codesourcery dot com>
- Cc: gdb-patches <gdb-patches at sourceware dot org>
- Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2008 15:25:58 -0800
- Subject: Re: arm_addr_bits_remove
- References: <47965D31.3040602@codesourcery.com>
I'm not an ARM expert by any means, so I don't object to the patch,
but I wonder if allowing arm_pc_is_thumb to return the wrong answer
for the first address beyond the end of a function will cause other
problems elsewhere.
If it is valuable to make arm_pc_is_thumb accurate in this case, when
it can't find a minsym at memaddr, and memaddr > 0, would it make
sense to look for a minsym at memaddr - 1, and see if MSYMBOL_SIZE (m)
!= 0 && SYMBOL_VALUE_ADDRESS (m) + MSYMBOL_SIZE (m) == memaddr, and
use m if so?