From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 12799 invoked by alias); 17 Jun 2013 18:05:57 -0000 Mailing-List: contact systemtap-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: systemtap-owner@sourceware.org Received: (qmail 12772 invoked by uid 89); 17 Jun 2013 18:05:53 -0000 X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-7.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_THREADED,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_W,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_WL,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.84/v0.84-167-ge50287c) with ESMTP; Mon, 17 Jun 2013 18:05:52 +0000 Received: from int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.12]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r5HI5oIo019976 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Mon, 17 Jun 2013 14:05:50 -0400 Received: from [10.36.116.45] (ovpn-116-45.ams2.redhat.com [10.36.116.45]) by int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id r5HI5mQi000471; Mon, 17 Jun 2013 14:05:49 -0400 Subject: Re: print_ubacktrace() and ppc 32 From: Mark Wielaard To: Lukas Berk Cc: Holger Brunck , systemtap@sourceware.org In-Reply-To: <20130617180008.GC2219@redhat.com> References: <51BF1C1E.7020208@keymile.com> <1371491014.4501.97.camel@bordewijk.wildebeest.org> <20130617180008.GC2219@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2013 18:05:00 -0000 Message-ID: <1371492348.4501.106.camel@bordewijk.wildebeest.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2013-q2/txt/msg00303.txt.bz2 On Mon, 2013-06-17 at 14:00 -0400, Lukas Berk wrote: > > On Mon, 2013-06-17 at 16:24 +0200, Holger Brunck wrote: > > > systemtap-2.3-32645/share/systemtap/runtime/stack.c:85:2: error: #error > > > "Unsupported architecture" > > > > This might be caused by the cross compiling, maybe something got > > confused about the architecture. You get that when: > > #ifndef STP_USE_DWARF_UNWINDER > > powerpc (and x86_64) both should use the DWARF_UNWINDER. So you might > > want to look at why that doesn't get defined in your case. > > Unfortunately I believe this is because we don't actually support > powerpc32 (only ppc64.h is defined in unwind.h). So while the first > error you're getting is being worked on (I'm currently working on > PR10272[1] so hopefully it'll be resloved soon), the second error will > be the show stopper here. Yeah thanks. I had completely forgotten I only implemented the DWARF unwinder for ppc64. Sorry. This was because when I wrote the powerpc DWARF unwinder (kernel support) I only had access to ppc64 kernels. So for a ppc32 kernel we do need a new runtime/unwind/ppc32.h definitions file. It should not be that hard to write based on the ppc64.h version and the ppc32 DWARF register mappings from http://refspecs.linuxbase.org/elf/elfspec_ppc.pdf But note that testing might be needed to see if those really map to actually used DWARF register numbers generated by the toolchain. As can be seen in the comments in ppc64.h sometimes mistakes have been made and theory/spec and practice are not the same :{ Cheers, Mark