[1/4] Restrict matching add/sub sp, #imm

Currently, GDB matches both add/sub sp, #imm in prologue and epilogue,
which is not very precise.  On the instruction level, the immediate
number in both instruction can't be negative, so 'sub sp, #imm' only
appears in prologue while 'add sp, #imm' only appears in epilogue.
Note that on assembly level, we can write 'add sp, -8', but gas will
translate to 'sub sp, 8' instruction.

This patch is to only match 'sub sp, #imm' in prologue and match
'add sp, #immm' in epilogue.  It paves the way for the following
patch.

gdb:

2014-07-02  Yao Qi  <yao@codesourcery.com>

	* arm-tdep.c (thumb_analyze_prologue): Don't match instruction
	'add sp, #immm'.
	(thumb_in_function_epilogue_p): Don't match 'sub sp, #imm'.
---
 gdb/arm-tdep.c | 15 +++++----------
 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)

On 3 July 2014 07:09, Yao Qi <yao@codesourcery.com> wrote:
> Currently, GDB matches both add/sub sp, #imm in prologue and epilogue,
> which is not very precise.  On the instruction level, the immediate
> number in both instruction can't be negative, so 'sub sp, #imm' only
> appears in prologue while 'add sp, #imm' only appears in epilogue.
> Note that on assembly level, we can write 'add sp, -8', but gas will
> translate to 'sub sp, 8' instruction.
>
> This patch is to only match 'sub sp, #imm' in prologue and match
> 'add sp, #immm' in epilogue.  It paves the way for the following
> patch.
>
> gdb:
>
> 2014-07-02  Yao Qi  <yao@codesourcery.com>
>
>         * arm-tdep.c (thumb_analyze_prologue): Don't match instruction
>         'add sp, #immm'.

One too many ms?

>         (thumb_in_function_epilogue_p): Don't match 'sub sp, #imm'.
> ---
>  gdb/arm-tdep.c | 15 +++++----------
>  1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/gdb/arm-tdep.c b/gdb/arm-tdep.c
> index 8cc60a4..0fc7fc1 100644
> --- a/gdb/arm-tdep.c
> +++ b/gdb/arm-tdep.c
> @@ -737,16 +737,11 @@ thumb_analyze_prologue (struct gdbarch *gdbarch,
>                 pv_area_store (stack, regs[ARM_SP_REGNUM], 4, regs[regno]);
>               }
>         }
> -      else if ((insn & 0xff00) == 0xb000)      /* add sp, #simm  OR
> -                                                  sub sp, #simm */
> +      else if ((insn & 0xff80) == 0xb080)      /* sub sp, #simm */

I wonder if we should adjust the comment to just #imm, as #simm
implies it is a signed quantity.

>         {
>           offset = (insn & 0x7f) << 2;          /* get scaled offset */
> -         if (insn & 0x80)                      /* Check for SUB.  */
> -           regs[ARM_SP_REGNUM] = pv_add_constant (regs[ARM_SP_REGNUM],
> -                                                  -offset);
> -         else
> -           regs[ARM_SP_REGNUM] = pv_add_constant (regs[ARM_SP_REGNUM],
> -                                                  offset);
> +         regs[ARM_SP_REGNUM] = pv_add_constant (regs[ARM_SP_REGNUM],
> +                                                -offset);
>         }
>        else if ((insn & 0xf800) == 0xa800)      /* add Rd, sp, #imm */
>         regs[bits (insn, 8, 10)] = pv_add_constant (regs[ARM_SP_REGNUM],
> @@ -3264,7 +3259,7 @@ thumb_in_function_epilogue_p (struct gdbarch *gdbarch, CORE_ADDR pc)
>         found_return = 1;
>        else if (insn == 0x46bd)  /* mov sp, r7 */
>         found_stack_adjust = 1;
> -      else if ((insn & 0xff00) == 0xb000)  /* add sp, imm or sub sp, imm  */
> +      else if ((insn & 0xff80) == 0xb000)  /* add sp, imm */
>         found_stack_adjust = 1;
>        else if ((insn & 0xfe00) == 0xbc00)  /* pop <registers> */
>         {
> @@ -3324,7 +3319,7 @@ thumb_in_function_epilogue_p (struct gdbarch *gdbarch, CORE_ADDR pc)
>
>        if (insn2 == 0x46bd)  /* mov sp, r7 */
>         found_stack_adjust = 1;
> -      else if ((insn2 & 0xff00) == 0xb000)  /* add sp, imm or sub sp, imm  */
> +      else if ((insn2 & 0xff80) == 0xb000)  /* add sp, imm */
>         found_stack_adjust = 1;
>        else if ((insn2 & 0xff00) == 0xbc00)  /* pop <registers> without PC */
>         found_stack_adjust = 1;

Otherwise the patch looks good to me.