On Thu, Feb 29, 2024 at 2:20 PM Hongtao Liu <crazy...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Wed, Feb 28, 2024 at 4:54 PM Jakub Jelinek <ja...@redhat.com> wrote: > > > > Hi! > > > > Adding Hongtao and Honza into the loop as the ones who acked the original > > patch. > > > > The no_callee_saved_registers by default for noreturn functions change can > > break in-process backtrace(3) or backtraces from debugger or other process > > (quite often, any time the noreturn function decides to use the bp register > > and any of the parent frames uses a frame pointer; the unwinder just crashes > > in the libgcc unwinder case, gdb prints stack corrupted message), so I'd > > like to save bp register in that case: > > > > https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2024-February/646591.html > I think this patch makes sense and LGTM, we save and restore frame > pointer for noreturn. > > > > and additionally the no_callee_saved_registers by default for noreturn > > functions change can make debugging harder, again not localized to the > > noreturn function, but any of its callers. So, if say glibc abort function > > implementation needs a lot of normally callee-saved registers, no matter how > > users recompile their apps, they will see garbage or optimized out > > vars/parameters in their code unless they rebuild their glibc with -O0. > > So, I think we should guard that by a non-default option: >From what has been discussed so far, I am inclined to this proposal. If there are no additional objections(or concerns) in a few days, ok for the trunk. > > > > > -- > BR, > Hongtao
-- BR, Hongtao
