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? Maciej
