From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 82484 invoked by alias); 27 Apr 2017 14:02:55 -0000 Mailing-List: contact elfutils-devel-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: Sender: elfutils-devel-owner@sourceware.org Received: (qmail 82442 invoked by uid 89); 27 Apr 2017 14:02:54 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Checked: by ClamAV 0.99.2 on sourceware.org X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.8 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KAM_LAZY_DOMAIN_SECURITY autolearn=no version=3.3.2 spammy= X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.8 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KAM_LAZY_DOMAIN_SECURITY autolearn=no version=3.3.2 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.2 (2011-06-06) on sourceware.org X-Spam-Level: X-HELO: gnu.wildebeest.org Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2017 15:09:00 -0000 From: Mark Wielaard To: Ulf Hermann Cc: elfutils-devel@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/5] Add frame pointer unwinding for aarch64 Message-ID: <20170427140240.GA6384@stream> References: <1493124006.31726.33.camel@klomp.org> <1493124579-21017-1-git-send-email-mark@klomp.org> <1493124579-21017-5-git-send-email-mark@klomp.org> <1493125881.31726.44.camel@klomp.org> <3b0d6718-cf17-9ae1-b5f7-8c6413b8d3d2@qt.io> <1493217200.31726.59.camel@klomp.org> <14b0cd1d-5737-2c7a-3fab-f197011c7fc6@qt.io> <1493248187.31726.92.camel@klomp.org> <4c8f3f4f-aa4c-7202-0e66-665899caf2ff@qt.io> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4c8f3f4f-aa4c-7202-0e66-665899caf2ff@qt.io> User-Agent: Mutt/1.8.0 (2017-02-23) X-SW-Source: 2017-q2/txt/msg00105.txt.bz2 On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 10:31:55AM +0200, Ulf Hermann wrote: > > Maybe something like the attached patch? > > Well that's actually the original patch (as opposed to V2) with relaxed test > conditions. You can write that a bit nicer by setting the new PC directly > after retrieving LR and returning early if it doesn't work. See "[PATCH 2/3] > Add frame pointer unwinding as fallback on arm" from February 16th. That's > the original algorithm; for aarch64 I just added a few defines and included > arm_unwind.c. I think the simplier implementation with relaxed test is better. I'll adjust the patch to look more like your original. > It's in fact a bit annoying for my use case as the non-CFI stack sections > are mostly in between CFI-enabled stack sections here. However, I can accept > this. Does every fp-only frame gets duplicated after a DWARF CFI frame? I'll look if I can better understand why that is. Cheers, Mark