On 08/03/2016 01:12 PM, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
I'm not sure if there are other cases with softmmu for example, where
we do get an exact host PC and thus where the -2 might take us back too
far.
I don't think there are. Almost everywhere we have the call return address.
It's only this c
On Tue, 2016-07-26 at 06:12 +0530, Richard Henderson wrote:
> The return address argument to the softmmu template helpers was
> confused. In the legacy case, we wanted to indicate that there
> is no return address, and so passed in NULL. However, we then
> immediately subtracted GETPC_ADJ from NU
On Tue, 2016-07-26 at 06:12 +0530, Richard Henderson wrote:
> The return address argument to the softmmu template helpers was
> confused. In the legacy case, we wanted to indicate that there
> is no return address, and so passed in NULL. However, we then
> immediately subtracted GETPC_ADJ from NU
On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 06:12:40AM +0530, Richard Henderson wrote:
> The return address argument to the softmmu template helpers was
> confused. In the legacy case, we wanted to indicate that there
> is no return address, and so passed in NULL. However, we then
> immediately subtracted GETPC_ADJ
On Tue, 2016-07-26 at 06:12 +0530, Richard Henderson wrote:
> The return address argument to the softmmu template helpers was
> confused. In the legacy case, we wanted to indicate that there
> is no return address, and so passed in NULL. However, we then
> immediately subtracted GETPC_ADJ from NU
The return address argument to the softmmu template helpers was
confused. In the legacy case, we wanted to indicate that there
is no return address, and so passed in NULL. However, we then
immediately subtracted GETPC_ADJ from NULL, resulting in a non-zero
value, indicating the presence of an (in
