Hi Richard, Jason, Is this patch
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-06/msg02401.html OK for trunk? Thanks. H.J. On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 3:21 PM, H.J. Lu <hjl.to...@gmail.com> wrote: > Ping. > > On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 2:20 PM, H.J. Lu <hjl.to...@gmail.com> wrote: >> PING. >> >> On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 1:47 PM, H.J. Lu <hjl.to...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 12:02 PM, Richard Henderson <r...@redhat.com> wrote: >>>> On 06/30/2011 11:23 AM, H.J. Lu wrote: >>>>> +#ifdef REG_VALUE_IN_UNWIND_CONTEXT >>>>> +typedef _Unwind_Word _Unwind_Context_Reg_Val; >>>>> +/* Signal frame context. */ >>>>> +#define SIGNAL_FRAME_BIT ((_Unwind_Word) 1 >> 0) >>>> >>>> There's absolutely no reason to re-define this. >>>> So what if the value is most-significant-bit set? >>>> >>>> Nor do I see any reason not to continue setting E_C_B. >>> >>> Done. >>> >>>>> +#define _Unwind_IsExtendedContext(c) 1 >>>> >>>> Why is this not still an inline function? >>> >>> It is defined before _Unwind_Context is declared. I used >>> macros so that there can be one less "#ifdef". >>> >>>>> + >>>>> +static inline _Unwind_Word >>>>> +_Unwind_Get_Unwind_Word (_Unwind_Context_Reg_Val val) >>>>> +{ >>>>> + return val; >>>>> +} >>>>> + >>>>> +static inline _Unwind_Context_Reg_Val >>>>> +_Unwind_Get_Unwind_Context_Reg_Val (_Unwind_Word val) >>>>> +{ >>>>> + return val; >>>>> +} >>>> >>>> I cannot believe this actually works. I see nowhere that >>>> you copy the by-address slot out of the stack frame and >>>> place it into the by-value slot in the unwind context. >>> >>> I changed the implantation based on the feedback from >>> Jason. Now I use the same reg field for both value and >>> address. >>> >>>>> /* This will segfault if the register hasn't been saved. */ >>>>> if (size == sizeof(_Unwind_Ptr)) >>>>> - return * (_Unwind_Ptr *) ptr; >>>>> + return * (_Unwind_Ptr *) (_Unwind_Internal_Ptr) val; >>>>> else >>>>> { >>>>> gcc_assert (size == sizeof(_Unwind_Word)); >>>>> - return * (_Unwind_Word *) ptr; >>>>> + return * (_Unwind_Word *) (_Unwind_Internal_Ptr) val; >>>>> } >>>> >>>> Indeed, this section is both wrong and belies the change >>>> you purport to make. >>>> >>>> You didn't even test this, did you? >>>> >>> >>> Here is the updated patch. It works on simple tests. >>> I am running full tests. I kept config/i386/value-unwind.h >>> since libgcc/md-unwind-support.h is included too late >>> in unwind-dw2.c and I don't want to move it to be on >>> the safe side. >>> >>> OK for trunk? >>> >>> Thanks. >>> >>> -- >>> H.J. >>> --- >>> gcc/ >>> >>> 2011-06-30 H.J. Lu <hongjiu...@intel.com> >>> >>> * config.gcc (libgcc_tm_file): Add i386/value-unwind.h for >>> Linux/x86. >>> >>> * system.h (REG_VALUE_IN_UNWIND_CONTEXT): Poisoned. >>> >>> * unwind-dw2.c (_Unwind_Context_Reg_Val): New. >>> (_Unwind_Get_Unwind_Word): Likewise. >>> (_Unwind_Get_Unwind_Context_Reg_Val): Likewise. >>> (_Unwind_Context): Use _Unwind_Context_Reg_Val on the reg field. >>> (_Unwind_IsExtendedContext): Defined as macro. >>> (_Unwind_GetGR): Updated. >>> (_Unwind_SetGR): Likewise. >>> (_Unwind_GetGRPtr): Likewise. >>> (_Unwind_SetGRPtr): Likewise. >>> (_Unwind_SetGRValue): Likewise. >>> (_Unwind_GRByValue): Likewise. >>> (__frame_state_for): Likewise. >>> (uw_install_context_1): Likewise. >>> >>> * doc/tm.texi.in: Document REG_VALUE_IN_UNWIND_CONTEXT. >>> * doc/tm.texi: Regenerated. >>> >>> libgcc/ >>> >>> 2011-06-30 H.J. Lu <hongjiu...@intel.com> >>> >>> * config/i386/value-unwind.h: New. >>> >> >>
