This is the mail archive of the gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: [RFC] C++ vs forced unwinding


Richard Henderson wrote:

>> - gcc's __builtin_return_address / __builtin_frame_address should be
>>   using unwind tables instead of hardcoded assumptions about just how
>>   a frame link is stored
>
>Absolutely not.

Why not?  A lot of existing code is using these, and it will break when
stack backchains are switched off.

If the necessary routines are exported from libgcc (which has all the
unwinder stuff anyway), shouldn't it be relatively simply to implement
__builtin_return_address / __builtin_frame_address in terms of calls
to libgcc routines?

>> - glibc's backtrace () likewise
>
>Use this instead.

For new code, certainly.


Mit freundlichen Gruessen / Best Regards

Ulrich Weigand

--
  Dr. Ulrich Weigand
  Linux for S/390 Design & Development
  IBM Deutschland Entwicklung GmbH, Schoenaicher Str. 220, 71032 Boeblingen
  Phone: +49-7031/16-3727   ---   Email: Ulrich dot Weigand at de dot ibm dot com


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]