This is the mail archive of the
java@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the Java project.
Re: backtrace() vs. _Unwind_Backtrace()
- From: Mohan Embar <gnustuff at thisiscool dot com>
- To: Bryce McKinlay <bryce at mckinlay dot net dot nz>
- Cc: java at gcc dot gnu dot org, Ranjit Mathew <rmathew at hotmail dot com>
- Date: Fri, 05 Dec 2003 06:52:59 -0600
- Subject: Re: backtrace() vs. _Unwind_Backtrace()
- Reply-to: gnustuff at thisiscool dot com
Hi Bryce,
>DWARF EH was previously enabled for Win32, but problems occurred where
>exceptions need to be thrown through OS callback frames (that don't
>have unwind info), which is a common requirement for Win32 code, so it
>uses SJLJ exceptions for now. So, it would need a way to unwind through
>info-less OS frames so that the DWARF unwinder can resume unwinding on
>the other side (ie a generalized MD_FALLBACK_FRAME_STATE_FOR).
I know little-to-nothing about this, but did this have to do with the structured
exception handler in win32.cc? If so, it looks like the two things we're trying
to deal with there are access violations and divides by zero. Because of the
issue you mentioned, -fcheck-references and -fuse-divide-subroutine were
later added:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/java-patches/2003-q2/msg00269.html
...so is my analysis correct that because of these additions, we can now
revert to DWARF EH on Win32? Ranjit?
-- Mohan
http://www.thisiscool.com/
http://www.animalsong.org/