2003-06-07 Andrew Cagney <cagney@redhat.com>

	* dwarf2-frame.c (dwarf2_frame_cache): Add comments on PC_REGNUM.
	Assert that PC_REGNUM is valid.
	(dwarf2_frame_prev_register): Add comments on SP_REGNUM.

diff --git a/gdb/ChangeLog b/gdb/ChangeLog
index e154e34..99f522e 100644 (file)
--- a/gdb/ChangeLog
+++ b/gdb/ChangeLog
@@ -1,5 +1,11 @@
 2003-06-07  Andrew Cagney  <cagney@redhat.com>
 
+       * dwarf2-frame.c (dwarf2_frame_cache): Add comments on PC_REGNUM.
+       Assert that PC_REGNUM is valid.
+       (dwarf2_frame_prev_register): Add comments on SP_REGNUM.
+
+2003-06-07  Andrew Cagney  <cagney@redhat.com>
+
        * gdbarch.sh (TARGET_READ_SP): Add predicate, delete default.
        * gdbarch.h, gdbarch.c: Regenerate.
        * mn10300-tdep.c: Include "gdb_assert.h".

diff --git a/gdb/dwarf2-frame.c b/gdb/dwarf2-frame.c
index f28fade..81eb195 100644 (file)
--- a/gdb/dwarf2-frame.c
+++ b/gdb/dwarf2-frame.c
@@ -544,6 +544,13 @@ dwarf2_frame_cache (struct frame_info *next_frame, void **this_cache)
 
       /* Skip the return address column.  */
       if (reg == fs->retaddr_column)
+       /* NOTE: cagney/2003-06-07: Is this right?  What if the
+           RETADDR_COLUM corresponds to a real register (and, worse,
+           that isn't the PC_REGNUM)?  I'm guessing that the PC_REGNUM
+           further down is trying to handle this.  That can't be right
+           though - PC_REGNUM may not be valid (it can be -ve).  I
+           think, instead when RETADDR_COLUM isn't a real register, it
+           should map itself onto frame_pc_unwind.  */
        continue;
 
       /* Use the GDB register number as index.  */
@@ -558,12 +565,22 @@ dwarf2_frame_cache (struct frame_info *next_frame, void **this_cache)
      implies a copy from the ra column register.  */
   if (fs->retaddr_column < fs->regs.num_regs
       && fs->regs.reg[fs->retaddr_column].how != REG_UNSAVED)
-    cache->reg[PC_REGNUM] = fs->regs.reg[fs->retaddr_column];
+    {
+      /* See comment above about a possibly -ve PC_REGNUM.  If this
+         assertion fails, it's a problem with this code and not the
+         architecture.  */
+      gdb_assert (PC_REGNUM >= 0);
+      cache->reg[PC_REGNUM] = fs->regs.reg[fs->retaddr_column];
+    }
   else
     {
       reg = DWARF2_REG_TO_REGNUM (fs->retaddr_column);
       if (reg != PC_REGNUM)
        {
+         /* See comment above about PC_REGNUM being -ve.  If this
+            assertion fails, it's a problem with this code and not
+            the architecture.  */
+         gdb_assert (PC_REGNUM >= 0);
          cache->reg[PC_REGNUM].loc.reg = reg;
          cache->reg[PC_REGNUM].how = REG_SAVED_REG;
        }
@@ -606,6 +623,21 @@ dwarf2_frame_prev_register (struct frame_info *next_frame, void **this_cache,
          /* GCC defines the CFA as the value of the stack pointer
             just before the call instruction is executed.  Do other
             compilers use the same definition?  */
+         /* DWARF V3 Draft 7 p102: Typically, the CFA is defined to
+            be the value of the stack pointer at the call site in the
+            previous frame (which may be different from its value on
+            entry to the current frame).  */
+         /* DWARF V3 Draft 7 p103: The first column of the rules
+             defines the rule which computes the CFA value; it may be
+             either a register and a signed offset that are added
+             together or a DWARF expression that is evaluated.  */
+         /* FIXME: cagney/2003-07-07: I don't understand this.  The
+             CFI info should have provided unwind information for the
+             SP register and then pointed ->cfa_reg at it, not the
+             reverse.  Assuming that SP_REGNUM is !-ve, there is a
+             very real posibility that CFA is an offset from some
+             other register, having nothing to do with the unwound SP
+             value.  */
          *optimizedp = 0;
          if (valuep)
            {