This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: gas: Question about .cfi_startproc and nested labels
- From: Martin Galvan <martin dot galvan at tallertechnologies dot com>
- To: Jan Beulich <JBeulich at suse dot com>
- Cc: binutils at sourceware dot org
- Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2014 09:45:27 -0300
- Subject: Re: gas: Question about .cfi_startproc and nested labels
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <CAOKbPbapLucqZDJfr6Bu0DdV8HZQxiZPAfF0ki8V_oGqs97vxw at mail dot gmail dot com> <5469D4C60200007800048507 at mail dot emea dot novell dot com>
On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 6:58 AM, Jan Beulich <JBeulich@suse.com> wrote:
>>>> On 17.11.14 at 06:09, <email@example.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:
>> 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:
>> 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.
Thanks a lot for your answer! One more question: what happens if I
call .cfi_restore_state without having called .cfi_remember_state
first? I've seen a couple of places where people seem to be doing
that, but I'm not sure of what the results would be.
Taller Technologies Argentina
San Lorenzo 47, 3rd Floor, Office 5
Phone: 54 351 4217888 / +54 351 4218211