This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: [PATCH] gas: fix a few omissions in .cfi_label handling
- From: "H.J. Lu" <hjl dot tools at gmail dot com>
- To: Jan Beulich <JBeulich at suse dot com>
- Cc: Binutils <binutils at sourceware dot org>
- Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2015 07:50:16 -0800
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] gas: fix a few omissions in .cfi_label handling
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <54D39521020000780005D651 at mail dot emea dot novell dot com> <CAMe9rOrMnQ4yAPqbPq55uPOJRrAd2Uz4nmo-g34pDU11o3n9Nw at mail dot gmail dot com> <54D39E1A020000780005D6C4 at mail dot emea dot novell dot com>
On Thu, Feb 5, 2015 at 7:45 AM, Jan Beulich <JBeulich@suse.com> wrote:
>>>> On 05.02.15 at 16:38, <email@example.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, Feb 5, 2015 at 7:06 AM, Jan Beulich <JBeulich@suse.com> wrote:
>>> While actually starting to use that new directive, I noticed a few
>>> oversights of the original commit.
>>> 2015-02-05 Jan Beulich <firstname.lastname@example.org>
>>> * dw2gencfi.c (select_cie_for_fde): Also bail on CFI_label.
>>> (cfi_change_reg_numbers): Also do nothing for CFI_label.
>>> (cfi_pseudo_table): Also handle .cfi_label when not supporting
>>> CFI directives.
>> Please add some testcases.
> For what? The original patch added some already, and I really don't
> see the point of me wasting time on trying to figure out how I could
> demonstrate that things could go wrong without these (minor and
> obvious) adjustments.
How does one know what the new directive should
behave? Without the testcase, it may be broken and
we won't even know it.