On 01/27/2012 05:14 PM, Dave Korn wrote: > On 27/01/2012 17:01, Andrew Haley wrote: >> On 01/27/2012 04:46 PM, Andreas Krebbel wrote: > >>> 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! >> >> I'm confused. >> >> But __divdi3 should have been compiled with enough unwinder data >> that it can be found; it should not matter whether __divdi3 has >> a stack frame or not. >> >> So why doesn't __divdi3 have a CFA of its own? > > Unless I've misunderstood, it's because the CFA *is* the stack frame (base?) > pointer.
Ah, it's not that it has no stack frame, it's that it has no stack adjustment at all, not even a push? Andrew.
