This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sourceware.org
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: Notes on a frame_unwind_address_in_block problem
- From: Andi Kleen <ak at suse dot de>
- To: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow at false dot org>
- Cc: Andreas Jaeger <aj at suse dot de>, Mark Kettenis <mark dot kettenis at xs4all dot nl>, gdb at sourceware dot org, libc-alpha at sourceware dot org
- Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2006 04:38:18 +0200
- Subject: Re: Notes on a frame_unwind_address_in_block problem
- References: <20060706222157.GA1377@nevyn.them.org> <20060718183520.GA17864@nevyn.them.org> <20060803020423.GA5693@nevyn.them.org>
On Thursday 03 August 2006 04:04, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 18, 2006 at 02:35:20PM -0400, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> > The only caveat is that it is in glibc, but knows about the kernel
> > layout of struct rt_sigframe - specifically that a struct ucontext
> > lives just above the SA_RESTORER return address. Andi, what do you
> > think of that? If it's a bad idea, we may need a different approach
> > (i.e. a vdso).
Missing context a bit. What exactly is the problem?
> Andreas, Andi, did either of you have an opinion on this? I'd really
> like to get the "GDB bug" fixed one way or the other. But I'm not
> sure yet if we can do it with this glibc patch, or whether we need a
> true ELF vDSO - or what other x86_64 specific issues that might have.
We'll get a vDSO with kernel supplied unwind sectins sooner or later, but
you'll have to handle the old vsyscall without unwinding anyways because
it's not going to go away.
Also even the vDSO might end up without unwind information when compiled
with old compilers because I don't plan to support it without .cfi_*
support in binutils.
-Andi