From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 21373 invoked by alias); 10 Jan 2014 10:40:13 -0000 Mailing-List: contact libc-ports-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: libc-ports-owner@sourceware.org Received: (qmail 21364 invoked by uid 89); 10 Jan 2014 10:40:12 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: mail-ve0-f179.google.com Received: from mail-ve0-f179.google.com (HELO mail-ve0-f179.google.com) (209.85.128.179) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES128-SHA encrypted) ESMTPS; Fri, 10 Jan 2014 10:40:11 +0000 Received: by mail-ve0-f179.google.com with SMTP id jw12so3381111veb.10 for ; Fri, 10 Jan 2014 02:40:09 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.58.90.230 with SMTP id bz6mr6129610veb.21.1389350409204; Fri, 10 Jan 2014 02:40:09 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.52.254.168 with HTTP; Fri, 10 Jan 2014 02:40:09 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <87iotxm15i.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2014 10:40:00 -0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH] [AARCH64]: Pointer mangling support for Aarch64 From: Marcus Shawcroft To: Venkataramanan Kumar Cc: libc-ports@sourceware.org, Patch Tracking Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2014-01/txt/msg00030.txt.bz2 On 8 January 2014 10:32, Venkataramanan Kumar wrote: > Also looking at x86 and powerpc ports. > They pass argument 1 - the address of jump buffer > argument 2 - return value of __longjmp > argument 3 - PC address or the jump target > For Aarch64, the longjmp/longjmp_target probe passed as below. > * first argument - 8@address of jmpbuf in x0. > * second argument- -4@return val in x1. > * third argument- 8@ PC address or jump target target in LR/X30. OK, so the arguments to the LIBC_PROBES in your patch look sensible. > is that fine? I'd like to see follow up to Will's question regarding placement of the two probes. > >> >> Do we need probes in setjmp aswell? > > Ok, I will add that as well. > I have not yet tested, the patch by enabling --enable-systemtap as it The patch needs to be tested ;-) Cheers /Marcus