On 30/05/2017 16:37, Mark Wielaard wrote:
> On Tue, 2017-05-30 at 13:28 +0530, Naveen N. Rao wrote:
>>> + if (! readfunc(sp + LR_OFFSET, &newLr, arg))
>>
>> should this be newSp + LR_OFFSET, since the LR save area is in the
>> caller's stack frame?
>
> Of course. You are entirely right.
>
> T
h plus a testcase (actual binaries removed from
patch, but testcase documents how they were generated - precisely like
for the other arches).
Thanks,
Mark
From 1b2cd3f4dc581eed0fc1ee98f97aa492a19873b0 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Mark Wielaard
Date: Sun, 21 May 2017 23:33:15 +0200
Subject: [
On 2017/05/24 10:05PM, Mark Wielaard wrote:
> This adds a minimal fallback unwinder for ppc64[le] in case we cannot find
> CFI for a particular address. It simply always sets the program counter to
> the link register, picks the previous stack pointer from the backchain,
> and the previous link reg
This adds a minimal fallback unwinder for ppc64[le] in case we cannot find
CFI for a particular address. It simply always sets the program counter to
the link register, picks the previous stack pointer from the backchain,
and the previous link register from the LR save area.
This isn't enough for
