jasonmolenda added inline comments.
================ Comment at: lldb/source/Plugins/ABI/Windows-x86_64/ABIWindows_x86_64.h:63 + return false; // Zero is not a valid stack address + return true; + } ---------------- kusmour wrote: > compnerd wrote: > > Can we add an additional test please? In particular, leaf frames are > > permitted to have unaligned stacks. > can you provide more information about this? On windows a leaf function > doesn't require a stack frame. But a frame function that doesn't call other > function is not required to align the stack I'm not sure if the Phabracator comments are pointing to the correct bits of sourcecode - you're talking about CallFrameAddressIsValid right? This is checking the stack frame's Canonical Frame Address -- it is a check that the caller's $rsp was 16-byte aligned before it CALLed a (possibly leaf). It isn't a check of the $rsp value in the callee. The unwinder uses this as a sanity check to detect when the backtrace has bogus values as it walks up the stack. Also, not sure where this comment thread is :) but re. CodeAddressIsValid - return true because this is the x86 ISA where there is no instruction alignment restrictions. This method is for architectures with fixed width instructions (okay, where"fixed width" is greater than 1 :) to help detect backtrace mistakes (again). e.g. aarch64/arm64 instructions are always 4-byte aligned. Repository: rLLDB LLDB CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D62213/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D62213 _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
