From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <glibc-bugs-return-20181-listarch-glibc-bugs=sources.redhat.com@sourceware.org>
Received: (qmail 21025 invoked by alias); 14 Nov 2013 20:27:11 -0000
Mailing-List: contact glibc-bugs-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <glibc-bugs.sourceware.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:glibc-bugs-subscribe@sourceware.org>
List-Post: <mailto:glibc-bugs@sourceware.org>
List-Help: <mailto:glibc-bugs-help@sourceware.org>, <http://sourceware.org/lists.html#faqs>
Sender: glibc-bugs-owner@sourceware.org
Received: (qmail 20899 invoked by uid 48); 14 Nov 2013 20:27:08 -0000
From: "ryan.arnold at linaro dot org" <sourceware-bugzilla@sourceware.org>
To: glibc-bugs@sourceware.org
Subject: [Bug ports/16169] AArch64 clone.S is missing some CFI markup
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2013 20:27:00 -0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: glibc
X-Bugzilla-Component: ports
X-Bugzilla-Version: unspecified
X-Bugzilla-Keywords:
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: ryan.arnold at linaro dot org
X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P2
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at sourceware dot org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Flags: review?
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields:
Message-ID: <bug-16169-131-enJJhZPtkG@http.sourceware.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-16169-131@http.sourceware.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-16169-131@http.sourceware.org/bugzilla/>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-SW-Source: 2013-11/txt/msg00152.txt.bz2

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16169

--- Comment #5 from Ryan S. Arnold <ryan.arnold at linaro dot org> ---
(In reply to Tom Tromey from comment #4)
> (In reply to Ryan S. Arnold from comment #2)
> 
> > Shouldn't that first cfi_endproc be located before the system call?
> > 
> >         /* X0:flags, x1:newsp, x2:parenttidptr, x3:newtls, x4:childtid.  */
> >         cfi_endproc
> >         svc     0x0
> > 
> > The rest of the patch look valid/correct.
> 
> For the placement of the cfi_endproc, I followed ARM,
> since I ran across this:
> 
> https://sourceware.org/ml/libc-ports/2010-01/msg00014.html
> 
> But there doesn't seem to be any consistency, as x86-64 puts
> it before the syscall.

Yeah, I was looking at the x86_64 example as well.  PowerPC does the same as
x86.  It seems that other examples of using cfi_endproc are inclusive of the
instructions which exit the current routine.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.