6 Mar
2014
6 Mar
'14
11:33 a.m.
On Wed, Mar 05, 2014 at 02:17:00AM +0000, Jean Pihet wrote:
On 4 March 2014 12:00, Will Deacon will.deacon@arm.com wrote:
On Mon, Mar 03, 2014 at 09:53:21AM +0000, Jean Pihet wrote:
str lr, [r0, #PC] @ Save caller PCThis isn't necessarily the `caller PC' (depending on how you define it). It's the return address, which is probably (but not always) the instruction following the branch to this function.
Agreed. However the perf test code expects a registers buffer filled in with the caller's values. I can change the comment here, is that needed?
It depends what the perf test code really expects. At the moment, you're not providing it with anything consistent which doesn't sound correct.
What does it use the caller PC for?
Will