This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Divide_1 testsuite fail due to a problem in the unwinding code
- From: Andrew Haley <aph at redhat dot com>
- To: Dave Korn <dave dot korn dot cygwin at gmail dot com>
- Cc: Andreas Krebbel <krebbel at linux dot vnet dot ibm dot com>, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2012 17:16:15 +0000
- Subject: Re: Divide_1 testsuite fail due to a problem in the unwinding code
- References: <20120127164616.GA8167@bart> <4F22D887.firstname.lastname@example.org> <4F22DB6F.email@example.com>
On 01/27/2012 05:14 PM, Dave Korn wrote:
> On 27/01/2012 17:01, Andrew Haley wrote:
>> On 01/27/2012 04:46 PM, Andreas Krebbel wrote:
>>> Starting with this IRA patch:
>>> __divdi3 does *not* need a stack frame at all.
>>> So the CFAs of __divdi3 and probe_1 are the same!
>> I'm confused.
>> But __divdi3 should have been compiled with enough unwinder data
>> that it can be found; it should not matter whether __divdi3 has
>> a stack frame or not.
>> So why doesn't __divdi3 have a CFA of its own?
> Unless I've misunderstood, it's because the CFA *is* the stack frame (base?)
Ah, it's not that it has no stack frame, it's that it has no
stack adjustment at all, not even a push?