This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sourceware.org
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: Notes on a frame_unwind_address_in_block problem
On Fri, Aug 18, 2006 at 05:07:47PM +0200, Andreas Jaeger wrote:
> Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org> writes:
>
> > [...]
> > Good enough for me. Andreas, in that case, is the patch in
> > http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb/2006-07/msg00131.html OK?
>
> Why are you using your own cf macros? We have e.g. CFI_STARTPROC (see
> sysdeps/generic/sysdep.h) and those should be used,
I wrote earlier:
> But, FYI, you can't actually write the unwind tables for these using
> .cfi_* directives. I tried. I'd need at least three new directives
> to do it sanely (for uleb128 escapes, sleb128 escapes, and adding the
> "S" augmentation). So I did it by hand, basically copied from the
> i386 vDSO, but simpler since we don't need any pushes or pops.
Even if I assume a brand new binutils which supports the "S"
augmentation, I would still need to hand-expand uleb128 and sleb128.
I thought there was another reason beyond that one too, but now I
can't remember it. I could try again (I did this but didn't save the
patch). But I really don't like having to assume the "S" support
is present and generating bogus unwind info if it isn't.
I suppose I could simply omit the unwind info if it isn't. Want
me to try that?
--
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery