| To: | vagabon.xyz@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH] Remove mfinfo[64] used by get_wchan() |
| From: | Atsushi Nemoto <anemo@mba.ocn.ne.jp> |
| Date: | Fri, 18 Aug 2006 18:11:36 +0900 (JST) |
| Cc: | ralf@linux-mips.org, linux-mips@linux-mips.org |
| In-reply-to: | <44E57F39.2020009@innova-card.com> |
| Original-recipient: | rfc822;linux-mips@linux-mips.org |
| References: | <44E57161.5060104@innova-card.com> <20060818.171558.89065994.nemoto@toshiba-tops.co.jp> <44E57F39.2020009@innova-card.com> |
| Sender: | linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org |
On Fri, 18 Aug 2006 10:50:01 +0200, Franck Bui-Huu <vagabon.xyz@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Does something like this seem correct ? If an exception occured on a first
> instruction of a function, show_backtrace() will call get_frame_info()
> with info->func_size != 0 but very small. In this case it returns 1.
Why get_frame_info() will be called with info->func_size != 0 ? The
offset of a _first_ instruction is 0, so "ofs" of this line in
unwind_stack() will be 0.
info.func_size = ofs; /* analyze from start to ofs */
---
Atsushi Nemoto
|
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: [PATCH] Remove mfinfo[64] used by get_wchan(), Franck Bui-Huu |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: [PATCH] Remove mfinfo[64] used by get_wchan(), Franck Bui-Huu |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: [PATCH] Remove mfinfo[64] used by get_wchan(), Franck Bui-Huu |
| Next by Thread: | Re: [PATCH] Remove mfinfo[64] used by get_wchan(), Franck Bui-Huu |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |