linux-mips
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH] Remove mfinfo[64] used by get_wchan()

To: Atsushi Nemoto <anemo@mba.ocn.ne.jp>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Remove mfinfo[64] used by get_wchan()
From: Franck Bui-Huu <vagabon.xyz@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2006 16:13:37 +0200
Cc: vagabon.xyz@gmail.com, ralf@linux-mips.org, linux-mips@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=G0oGfrgHekeRsz73/rV1YPg814aqM2yNF/eHJuY7wlI2AMmroPGIgOihX396p+5VZCMfcsLMI4rYoDtFjvH7zxAqaZ2AOqHwZwKVhHWLSSkN04J/hpvzqO03mYpwbMs0UYWNj/swo8hDWP4umemXCcyfWKAeg97Yph1OZ3DKx00=
In-reply-to: <20060818.230403.25910276.anemo@mba.ocn.ne.jp>
Original-recipient: rfc822;linux-mips@linux-mips.org
References: <44E57F39.2020009@innova-card.com> <20060818.181136.85412687.nemoto@toshiba-tops.co.jp> <44E5AFD9.1050101@innova-card.com> <20060818.230403.25910276.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 Fri, 18 Aug 2006 14:17:29 +0200, Franck Bui-Huu <vagabon.xyz@gmail.com> 
> wrote:
>>> 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 */
>>>
>> because in unwind_stack(), before the line you showed, we do:
>>
>>      if (!kallsyms_lookup(pc, &size, &ofs, &modname, namebuf))
>>              return 0;
>>      if (ofs == 0)
>>              return 0;
> 
> Oh I missed it.
> 
>> Maybe we should do instead:
>>
>>      if (!kallsyms_lookup(pc, &size, &ofs, &modname, namebuf))
>>              return 0;
>>      /* return ra if an exception occured at the first instruction */
>>      if (ofs == 0)
>>              return ra;
> 
> Sure.  I should be a right fix.  This part must be fixed anyway.
> 
>> And in any cases, if we pass info->func_size = 0 to get_frame_info(),
>> then it will consider the function size as unknown.
> 
> I see.  You're right.
> 

ok, I'm going to send a new patchset. Thanks for your feedbacks.

                Franck

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>