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: [PATCH, RFC] Enable libsanitizer on powerpc{,64}

On 11/20/2012 02:14 PM, Peter Bergner wrote:
> Doesn't this save us, since the bottom frame in the backtrace will always
> be an ASAN functionand the frame we're interested in will always be higher
> in the backtrace?
> 
> I guess I'm wondering, in this specific use case, do you think using
> the CFA to compare against is safe or not?

Yes it saves us.  I believe using the value of __builtin_dwarf_cfa from
the outermost ASAN function will reliably match the SP value of the
interesting user function outer of ASAN.


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