![]() | ||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 17:34:13 -0800 George Anzinger <george@mvista.com> wrote: > > The latest binutils should support .cfi_* for i386 too. I don't see much sense > > in making the code more ugly just for staying backwards compatible with older versions for the > > debug case (without CONFIG_DEBUG_INFO it should be compatible though). > > You need a fairly new gdb too anyways for it. > > Well, yes, the CVS version I mentioned in my patch is needed as I found a bug in > the expression analizer. I am NOT trying to say compatable with old tools. I > AM trying to do something the CURRENT tools make hard to impossible. > > The problem with the gas CFI support is that it does not provide a way to define > CFI expressions which are needed to determine if the CFI address should be zero > (i.e. the return is to user space) or the current adjusted stack address. Michal, can you comment? > I suppose the open ended .cfi_ thing could be used but it requires that you > compute your own sleb128 and uleb128 values. It is also not clear how you tell > this thing if you want a word or a half word as the dwarf2 spec requires. More > info on this would be very "nice". I really would like to do this with out the > dwarf2 macros, but, please understand, one of the main reasons for the effort > was to tie off the bottom of the stack and that seems to require an expression > capability for the asm code in entry.S. The one issue that required expression support on x86-64 (switching between the interrupt stack and the process stack) was handled by a dummy base register with a single ifdef. This turned out to be relatively clean. -Andi - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ | |||||||||
| Last update: 2005-03-22 13:00 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | ||||||||||