| To: | Atsushi Nemoto <anemo@mba.ocn.ne.jp> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH] dump_stack() based on prologue code analysis |
| From: | Franck Bui-Huu <vagabon.xyz@gmail.com> |
| Date: | Mon, 31 Jul 2006 16:32:52 +0200 |
| Cc: | vagabon.xyz@gmail.com, linux-mips@linux-mips.org, ralf@linux-mips.org |
| Domainkey-signature: | a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:reply-to:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:from; b=pdV3PF9u7xgH8hajhChmgndSGjjU29y9Dg5f9gg7gAHOKcDekvwmDmFCs2KmVRVpohTP1gb39wEojRl+ffGZvMNNZsrS1u9xwy5KsHhljNev39zN6cbJWaBmS57cLhBo5HQw8RriVsum6GhCoDilza0B7E3xCE/ew4gD2EJZL3k= |
| In-reply-to: | <20060731.223923.115609520.anemo@mba.ocn.ne.jp> |
| Original-recipient: | rfc822;linux-mips@linux-mips.org |
| References: | <cda58cb80607271203u70b26e23o65b71d3d0c900f94@mail.gmail.com> <20060729.010137.36922349.anemo@mba.ocn.ne.jp> <44CDCA46.3030707@innova-card.com> <20060731.223923.115609520.anemo@mba.ocn.ne.jp> |
| Reply-to: | Franck <vagabon.xyz@gmail.com> |
| Sender: | linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org |
| User-agent: | Thunderbird 1.5.0.4 (X11/20060614) |
Atsushi Nemoto wrote:
> On Mon, 31 Jul 2006 11:15:50 +0200, Franck Bui-Huu <vagabon.xyz@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>>> Yes, that is what I wanted. Imagine if a exception happened on first
>>> place on non-leaf function. In this case, we must assume the function
>>> is leaf since RA is not saved to the stack.
>> The only case I can imagine is when sp is corrupted which is unlikely.
>
> Modern gcc somtimes do amazing optimization ;-)
>
>> However an exception can occure just after a prologue of a nested
>> function which is more likely. In that case you will assume wrongly
>> that the function was a leaf one.
>
> Why? get_frame_info() should detect frame_size and pc_offset for that
> case.
>
> Is your objection against "info->func_size / 4" part? the "4" comes
> from size of a instruction.
>
OK. I missed that, sorry.
> Well, using "4" instead of "sizeof(union mips_instruction)" or
> "sizeof(*ip)" was my old fault...
Well could we use "sizeof(union mips_instruction)" so nobody won't
make the same mistake ?
if (i >= info->func_size / sizeof(union mips_instruction))
break;
BTW I omit the first condition "info->func_size != 0" because
normally a func has a no null size. If it has we should stop
right now.
We should also test this condition _before_ testing that "*ip" is
a jal instruction, shouldn't we ?
Franck
|
| Previous by Date: | [PATCH] changed common definitions to using asm-generic/signal.h, Yoichi Yuasa |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: [PATCH] dump_stack() based on prologue code analysis (take 2), Atsushi Nemoto |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: [PATCH] dump_stack() based on prologue code analysis, Atsushi Nemoto |
| Next by Thread: | Re: [PATCH] dump_stack() based on prologue code analysis, Atsushi Nemoto |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |