From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [216.205.24.124]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 976A03857806 for ; Fri, 6 Nov 2020 16:42:19 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 sourceware.org 976A03857806 Received: from mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (mimecast-mx01.redhat.com [209.132.183.4]) (Using TLS) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP id us-mta-267-x_VB-bedMcWcsBtsMpDWNA-1; Fri, 06 Nov 2020 11:42:17 -0500 X-MC-Unique: x_VB-bedMcWcsBtsMpDWNA-1 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx06.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.16]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CB38E1028D68; Fri, 6 Nov 2020 16:42:15 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost.localdomain (ovpn-114-181.phx2.redhat.com [10.3.114.181]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7FC0B5091D; Fri, 6 Nov 2020 16:42:15 +0000 (UTC) Subject: Re: Patch for 96948 To: =?UTF-8?Q?Martin_Storsj=c3=b6?= , =?UTF-8?Q?Kirill_M=c3=bcller?= Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org References: <5078c506-a154-3890-2246-56bc009e7bc2@mailbox.org> <458eeb59-92cd-6554-e587-ca63fb95b62d@mailbox.org> From: Jeff Law Message-ID: Date: Fri, 6 Nov 2020 09:42:15 -0700 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.3.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.79 on 10.5.11.16 X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Language: en-US X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.4 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH, DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, DKIM_VALID_EF, KAM_NUMSUBJECT, NICE_REPLY_A, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL, SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS, TXREP autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on server2.sourceware.org X-BeenThere: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Gcc-patches mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 06 Nov 2020 16:42:20 -0000 On 9/8/20 9:34 AM, Martin Storsjö wrote: > Hi, > > On Tue, 8 Sep 2020, Kirill Müller wrote: > >> Thanks for the heads up. The coincidence is funny -- a file that >> hasn't been touched for years. > > I think we both may originally be triggered from the same guy asking > around in different places about implementations of _Unwind_Backtrace > for windows, actually. > >> I do believe that we need the logic around the `first` flag for >> consistency with the other unwind-*.c implementations. > > Yes, if you store ms_context.Rip/Rsp before the RtlVirtualUnwind step > - but my patch stores them afterwards; after RtlVirtualUnwind, before > calling the callback. > > The result should be the same, except if using the first flag > approach, I believe you're missing the last frame that is printed if > using my patch. Presumably with your patch installed, the patch from Kirill is unnecessary, right? jeff