From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 2274 invoked by alias); 30 Jun 2011 14:08:51 -0000 Received: (qmail 2265 invoked by uid 22791); 30 Jun 2011 14:08:51 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,SPF_HELO_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Thu, 30 Jun 2011 14:08:35 +0000 Received: from int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.22]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p5UE8YVb017712 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Thu, 30 Jun 2011 10:08:34 -0400 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (ovpn-113-39.phx2.redhat.com [10.3.113.39]) by int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p5UE8X0h012883; Thu, 30 Jun 2011 10:08:34 -0400 Message-ID: <4E0C8361.5050403@redhat.com> Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2011 14:46:00 -0000 From: Jason Merrill User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.9.2.17) Gecko/20110428 Fedora/3.1.10-1.fc14 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.10 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "H.J. Lu" CC: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, Richard Henderson , Jakub Jelinek Subject: Re: PATCH [8/n]: Prepare x32: PR other/48007: Unwind library doesn't work with UNITS_PER_WORD > sizeof (void *) References: <20110625161357.GA5401@intel.com> <4E078E58.20903@redhat.com> <4E07A879.70509@redhat.com> <4E089A88.60401@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2011-06/txt/msg02352.txt.bz2 On 06/28/2011 02:53 PM, H.J. Lu wrote: > This updated patch. It allows multiple unwind contexts. It replaces > > char by_value[DWARF_FRAME_REGISTERS+1]; > > with > > _Unwind_Word value[DWARF_FRAME_REGISTERS+1]; > > The code is cleaner than conditionally replacing > > void *reg[DWARF_FRAME_REGISTERS+1]; > > with > > _Unwind_Word reg[DWARF_FRAME_REGISTERS+1]; > > with a bigger unwind context. It doesn't seem cleaner to me. > But it is more flexible if we > want to extend unwind context later, like saving/restoring > 128bit or vector registers which may be bigger than the current > _Unwind_Word. I don't see that, either; with either approach, supporting larger registers would require a change to the the unwind context. Jason