From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============2727157349304644513=="
MIME-Version: 1.0
From: Mark Wielaard <mjw@redhat.com>
To: elfutils-devel@lists.fedorahosted.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] libebl: Add ebl_unwind_ret_mask.
Date: Sun, 15 Jun 2014 20:42:12 +0200
Message-ID: <1402857732.21102.12.camel@bordewijk.wildebeest.org>
In-Reply-To: 20140615181802.GA7176@roeckx.be

--===============2727157349304644513==
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Sun, 2014-06-15 at 20:18 +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 15, 2014 at 12:30:02PM +0200, Mark Wielaard wrote:
> > +  /* Mask to use to get the return address from an unwind in case the
> > +     architecture adds some extra non-address bits to it.  When not
> > +     initialized (0) then ebl_unwind_ret_mask will return ~0, otherwise
> > +     it should be the actual mask to use.  */
> > +  GElf_Addr unwind_ret_mask;
> =

> Shouldn't that be an Elf64_Addr?

No. None of the unwinder uses Elf32 or Elf64 specific types. GElf_Addr
is used here so the unwinder code doesn't need to care about 32-vs-64
issues.

Cheers,

Mark


--===============2727157349304644513==--