[lkml]   [2020]   [Mar]   [2]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: eh_frame confusion
Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 02, 2020 at 11:56:05AM +0100, Rasmus Villemoes wrote:
>> I'm building a ppc32 kernel, and noticed that after upgrading from gcc-7
>> to gcc-8 all object files now end up having .eh_frame section.
> Since GCC 8, we enable -fasynchronous-unwind-tables by default for
> PowerPC. See .
>> For
>> vmlinux, that's not a problem, because they all get discarded in
>> arch/powerpc/kernel/ . However, they stick around in
>> modules, which doesn't seem to be useful - given that everything worked
>> just fine with gcc-7, and I don't see anything in the module loader that
>> handles .eh_frame.
> It is useful for debugging. Not many people debug the kernel like this,
> of course.

I'm trying to understand if we need that. Other architectures seems to
pass -fasynchronous-unwind-tables only for the vdso, but disable it for
the kernel build. I suppose we can do the same.

If using -fno-asynchronous-unwind-tables, would crash/perf have

- Naveen

 \ /
  Last update: 2020-03-02 18:19    [W:0.113 / U:2.140 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site