This is the mail archive of the
binutils@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: [PATCH] i386/x86-64: adjust unwind information register encodings
- From: "H. J. Lu" <hjl at lucon dot org>
- To: Jan Beulich <JBeulich at novell dot com>
- Cc: binutils at sources dot redhat dot com
- Date: Fri, 6 May 2005 09:09:53 -0700
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] i386/x86-64: adjust unwind information register encodings
- References: <s27ba391.054@emea1-mh.id2.novell.com>
On Fri, May 06, 2005 at 06:04:45PM +0200, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>> "H. J. Lu" <hjl@lucon.org> 06.05.05 17:33:26 >>>
> >On Fri, May 06, 2005 at 05:05:48PM +0200, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >> >>> "H. J. Lu" <hjl@lucon.org> 06.05.05 16:00:38 >>>
> >> >On Fri, May 06, 2005 at 02:01:21PM +0200, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >> >> The register numbers used in x86-64's .eh_frame entries neither matched the
> >> >> ABI nor the gcc implementation. Additionally, a significant amount of
> >> >> registers were missing in both 32- and 64-bit modes (even now there are, but
> >> >> only those for which there don't appear to be register numbers assigned in
> >> >> the respective ABI).
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >Have we been generating wrong unwind info up to now?
> >>
> >> Yes, it looks like that.
> >
> >How has it ever worked with glibc and gdb?
>
> Because the CFI directives are rarely used, and (as Daniel pointed out) only some registers were mis-numbered.
>
CFI directives are used in glibc. Have you double checked them?
H.J.