From: Richard Henderson <rth@redhat.com>
To: "H.J. Lu" <hjl.tools@gmail.com>
Cc: Rainer Orth <ro@cebitec.uni-bielefeld.de>,
Jason Merrill <jason@redhat.com>,
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: PATCH [8/n]: Prepare x32: PR other/48007: Unwind library doesn't work with UNITS_PER_WORD > sizeof (void *)
Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2011 20:24:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4E0CC85E.3090401@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTimRWq4S4bKQpvuYzO3Go6yMc2fcgg@mail.gmail.com>
On 06/30/2011 11:23 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> +#ifdef REG_VALUE_IN_UNWIND_CONTEXT
> +typedef _Unwind_Word _Unwind_Context_Reg_Val;
> +/* Signal frame context. */
> +#define SIGNAL_FRAME_BIT ((_Unwind_Word) 1 >> 0)
There's absolutely no reason to re-define this.
So what if the value is most-significant-bit set?
Nor do I see any reason not to continue setting E_C_B.
> +#define _Unwind_IsExtendedContext(c) 1
Why is this not still an inline function?
> +
> +static inline _Unwind_Word
> +_Unwind_Get_Unwind_Word (_Unwind_Context_Reg_Val val)
> +{
> + return val;
> +}
> +
> +static inline _Unwind_Context_Reg_Val
> +_Unwind_Get_Unwind_Context_Reg_Val (_Unwind_Word val)
> +{
> + return val;
> +}
I cannot believe this actually works. I see nowhere that
you copy the by-address slot out of the stack frame and
place it into the by-value slot in the unwind context.
> /* This will segfault if the register hasn't been saved. */
> if (size == sizeof(_Unwind_Ptr))
> - return * (_Unwind_Ptr *) ptr;
> + return * (_Unwind_Ptr *) (_Unwind_Internal_Ptr) val;
> else
> {
> gcc_assert (size == sizeof(_Unwind_Word));
> - return * (_Unwind_Word *) ptr;
> + return * (_Unwind_Word *) (_Unwind_Internal_Ptr) val;
> }
Indeed, this section is both wrong and belies the change
you purport to make.
You didn't even test this, did you?
r~
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-06-30 19:03 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 34+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-06-25 17:02 H.J. Lu
2011-06-25 23:34 ` Joseph S. Myers
2011-06-25 23:36 ` H.J. Lu
2011-06-26 20:06 ` Jason Merrill
2011-06-26 20:22 ` Jason Merrill
2011-06-26 21:45 ` H.J. Lu
2011-06-27 2:12 ` Jason Merrill
2011-06-27 3:17 ` H.J. Lu
2011-06-27 15:16 ` Jason Merrill
2011-06-28 19:25 ` H.J. Lu
2011-06-30 14:46 ` Jason Merrill
2011-06-30 14:53 ` H.J. Lu
2011-06-30 15:26 ` Jason Merrill
2011-06-30 16:36 ` H.J. Lu
2011-06-30 17:57 ` H.J. Lu
2011-06-30 18:01 ` H.J. Lu
2011-06-30 18:10 ` Rainer Orth
2011-06-30 18:19 ` H.J. Lu
2011-06-30 18:42 ` Rainer Orth
2011-06-30 20:14 ` H.J. Lu
2011-06-30 20:24 ` Richard Henderson [this message]
2011-06-30 21:51 ` H.J. Lu
2011-07-01 9:03 ` Rainer Orth
2011-07-01 12:51 ` H.J. Lu
2011-07-01 13:37 ` Rainer Orth
2011-07-01 13:42 ` H.J. Lu
2011-07-01 14:03 ` Rainer Orth
2011-07-01 14:06 ` H.J. Lu
2011-07-01 14:25 ` Rainer Orth
2011-07-01 14:55 ` H.J. Lu
2011-08-02 21:02 ` Jason Merrill
2011-08-02 22:27 ` H.J. Lu
2011-08-03 21:47 ` Jason Merrill
2011-06-30 20:59 ` H.J. Lu
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=4E0CC85E.3090401@redhat.com \
--to=rth@redhat.com \
--cc=gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org \
--cc=hjl.tools@gmail.com \
--cc=jakub@redhat.com \
--cc=jason@redhat.com \
--cc=ro@cebitec.uni-bielefeld.de \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).