On 27/01/2012 16:58, Dave Korn wrote:
> On 27/01/2012 16:46, Andreas Krebbel wrote:
>> 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?
(Answering myself) No, it won't be enough; it would solve that particular
inlining case but not if there was a stack of recursive calls through one or
more intermediate functions. I think adopting the GDB convention of IP+CFA to
identify the context is probably necessary after all.
cheers,
DaveK
