This is the mail archive of the gdb@sourceware.org mailing list for the GDB project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: Unwinding CFI gcc practice of assumed `same value' regs


Andrew Haley wrote:
Null-terminating the call stack is too well-established practice to be
changed now.

Which does not mean that the mistake should hold people back. This is just one of the mistakes in the x86-64 ABI. It was copied from x86 and it was wrong there already.



In practice, %ebp either points to a call frame -- not necessarily the
most recent one -- or is null.  I don't think that having an optional
frame pointer mees you can use %ebp for anything random at all,

Of course it means that.



The right way to fix the ABI is to specify that %ebp mustn't be
[mis]used in this way, not to add a bunch more unwinder data.

Nope. The right way is to specify things like backtraces with the adequate mechanism. I fully support adding the Dwarf3 unwinder requirements.


--
â Ulrich Drepper â Red Hat, Inc. â 444 Castro St â Mountain View, CA â


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]