This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the libc-ports project.
Re: [PATCH] [AARCH64]: Pointer mangling support for Aarch64
- From: Marcus Shawcroft <marcus dot shawcroft at gmail dot com>
- To: Venkataramanan Kumar <venkataramanan dot kumar at linaro dot org>
- Cc: libc-ports at sourceware dot org, Patch Tracking <patch at linaro dot org>
- Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2014 10:40:09 +0000
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] [AARCH64]: Pointer mangling support for Aarch64
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <CAJK_mQ0EoE+_JQvSL+5=C_+Q6JgsV8hvXipy8OgR8+GYyYgt3A at mail dot gmail dot com> <87iotxm15i dot fsf at fleche dot redhat dot com> <CAJK_mQ2isVSQgbARrRT6KYGODUyCgAavnD-TTYVYK7_bUjb6LQ at mail dot gmail dot com> <CAFqB+Pzt2X9tcqCyzSBn0XcT62c09VUYikUHdNB6iuvrB8poWg at mail dot gmail dot com> <CAJK_mQ2QCwEsV4-o6pha+jcN9dNDoRuKMP9vCWd6kvsf-K9yYg at mail dot gmail dot com>
On 8 January 2014 10:32, Venkataramanan Kumar
> Also looking at x86 and powerpc ports.
> They pass argument 1 - the address of jump buffer
> argument 2 - return value of __longjmp
> argument 3 - PC address or the jump target
> For Aarch64, the longjmp/longjmp_target probe passed as below.
> * first argument - 8@address of jmpbuf in x0.
> * second argument- -4@return val in x1.
> * third argument- 8@ PC address or jump target target in LR/X30.
OK, so the arguments to the LIBC_PROBES in your patch look sensible.
> is that fine?
I'd like to see follow up to Will's question regarding placement of
the two probes.
>> Do we need probes in setjmp aswell?
> Ok, I will add that as well.
> I have not yet tested, the patch by enabling --enable-systemtap as it
The patch needs to be tested ;-)