From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1O72ee-0001SY-Ul
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 28 Apr 2010 04:30:01 -0400
Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=50762 helo=eggs.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1O72ec-0001RB-Ql
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 28 Apr 2010 04:29:59 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.69)
	(envelope-from <junkoi2004@gmail.com>) id 1O72eW-0006VM-K2
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 28 Apr 2010 04:29:57 -0400
Received: from mail-iw0-f196.google.com ([209.85.223.196]:34644)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69)
	(envelope-from <junkoi2004@gmail.com>) id 1O72eW-0006V4-7Q
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 28 Apr 2010 04:29:52 -0400
Received: by iwn34 with SMTP id 34so10475956iwn.23
	for <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>; Wed, 28 Apr 2010 01:29:51 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <4BD7EDFA.9010102@siemens.com>
References: <t2pfdaac4d51004272151x36aae777wc4f95d1d9ec0de3a@mail.gmail.com>
	<4BD7EDFA.9010102@siemens.com>
From: Jun Koi <junkoi2004@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2010 17:29:31 +0900
Message-ID: <m2xfdaac4d51004280129rb21ed6acn46c422510d19a4f3@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Subject: [Qemu-devel] Re: Question on implementatio of GETPC()
List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/pipermail/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@siemens.com>
Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org

On Wed, Apr 28, 2010 at 5:12 PM, Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@siemens.com> wrote:
> Jun Koi wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> In x86, GETPC() is implemented as below:
>>
>> # define GETPC() ((void *)((unsigned long)__builtin_return_address(0) - 1))
>>
>> As I understand, it gets the returned address on the stack, then
>> subtract 1 to get back to the above address.
>>
>> Imagine we have code like this (pseudo asm code):
>>
>> ....
>> CALL <relative address>
>> <next-insn>
>> ....
>>
>> When we call GETPC, we get the address of <next-insn>, and subtract 1.
>> But the problem is that the CALL insn is more than 1 byte, so how can
>> GETPC() gives us the address of the CALL insn above?
>>
>> I guess I must misunderstood something here ....
>
> IIRC, the result of GETPC is used for a range check. So you just have to
> ensure that it points somewhere into the translated code sequence of the
> current target instruction.
>

Hmm if I am not wrong, the GETPC address is really used as jump target
of some code (such as when handling page fault), so that must be
accurate.
This is so confused to me!

Thanks,
J