Re: gas: Question about .cfi_startproc and nested labels

["Jan Beulich" <JBeulich at suse dot com>]

>>> On 17.11.14 at 06:09, <martin.galvan@tallertechnologies.com> wrote:
> Hi there! I'm trying to add some CFI directives to an existing ARM
> code, and I noticed sometimes we have stuff like this:
> 
> some_label:
> ...
> 
> some_other_label:
> ...
> 
> END
> 
> where "END" is a macro that expands to the appropriate epilogue/return
> instructions. If we want to mark those labels as functions, I know
> .cfi_endproc should be placed right after the END macro, but what
> about .cfi_startproc? I'm thinking of doing something like:
> 
> some_label:
> .cfi_startproc
> ...
> 
> some_other_label:
> .cfi_startproc
> ...
> 
> END
> .cfi_endproc
> 
> However, I'm not sure if that would be right. Will gas realize
> some_label and some_other_label are meant to be different functions?

No - these two directives have to strictly alternate. I.e. you'd need
another .cfi_endproc right before the second label, or drop the
.cfi_startproc right after it. Note that to the unwinder it doesn't
really matter whether some internal label of a function is externally
callable - all it cares about is that the unwinder state is correct at
that (as well as any other) point.

Jan