This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Cannot unwind through MIPS signal frames with ICACHE_REFILLS_WORKAROUND_WAR
On Tue, Nov 13, 2007 at 02:14:58PM +0100, Franck Bui-Huu wrote:
> > > David Daney writes:
> > > > With the current kernel (2.6.23.1) in my R5000 based O2 it seems
> > > > impossible for GCC's exception unwinding machinery to unwind through
> > > > signal frames. The cause of the problems is the
> > > > ICACHE_REFILLS_WORKAROUND_WAR which puts the sigcontext at an almost
> > > > impossible to determine offset from the signal return trampoline. The
> > > > unwinder depends on being able to find the sigcontext given a known
> > > > location of the trampoline.
> > > >
> > > > It seems there are a couple of possible solutions:
> > > >
> > > > 1) The comments in war.h indicate the problem only exists in R7000
> > > > and E9000 processors. We could turn off the workaround if the
> > > > kernel is configured for R5000. That would help me, but not those
> > > > with the effected systems.
> > > >
> > > > 2) In the non-workaround case, the siginfo immediately follows the
> > > > trampoline and the first member is the signal number. For the
> > > > workaround case the first word following the trampoline is zero.
> > > > We could replace this with the offset to the sigcontext which is
> > > > always a small negative value. The unwinder could then distinguish
> > > > the two cases (signal numbers are positive and the offset
> > > > negative). If we did this, the change would have to be coordinated
> > > > with GCC's unwinder (in libgcc_s.so.1).
> > > >
> > > > Thoughts?
> > >
> > > The best solution is to put the unwinder info in the kernel. Does
> > > MIPS use a vDSO ?
> >
> > No though we should.
> >
> > Another reason is to get rid of the classic trampoline the kernel installs
> > on the stack. On some multiprocessor systems it requires a cacheflush
> > operation to be performed on all processors which is expensive. Having
> > the trampoline in a vDSO would solve that.
> >
>
> And the stack wouldn't need to have exec permission anymore.
Oh?
extern void frob(void (*)(void));
int foo(void)
{
int x;
void bar(void)
{
x++;
}
frob(&bar);
print("x is %d\n", x);
}
Compile and enjoy.
Ralf