> -----Original Message----- > From: Maciej W. Rozycki [mailto:ma...@imgtec.com] > Sent: Tuesday, January 19, 2016 10:28 AM > To: Moore, Catherine > Cc: binut...@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
fde.cl
Description: fde.cl
fde.patch
Description: fde.patch
