On 27/01/2012 16:46, Andreas Krebbel wrote:
> Divide_1::probe_1() -> __divdi3
> |SIGFPE
> V
> catch_fpe -> _Jv_Throw
>
> After doing the instruction parsing in order to figure out whether
> it's actually the INT_MIN/-1 case or not an exception is thrown.
>
> During _Unwind_RaiseException the handler is found in probe_1 and in
> order to re-find it in phase2 the CFA! is recorded in the private_2 field
> of the exception.
>
> Starting with this IRA patch:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-10/msg00028.html
> __divdi3 does *not* need a stack frame at all.
>
> So the CFAs of __divdi3 and probe_1 are the same!
>
> This triggers the assertion in _Unwind_RaiseException_Phase2 which
> assumes that it is about to pass the frame with the handler without
> actually finding one.
Wouldn't it work to just let the unwind loop continue running if the next
frame's CFA is the same as the current one's?
cheers,
DaveK
