This is the mail archive of the libc-ports@sources.redhat.com mailing list for the libc-ports project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: backtrace() from a pthread on ARM

From: Andreas Schwab <schwab at linux-m68k dot org>
To: Matt Fischer <mattfischer84 at gmail dot com>
Cc: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow at false dot org>, libc-ports at sourceware dot org
Date: Tue, 12 May 2009 18:09:01 +0200
Subject: Re: backtrace() from a pthread on ARM
References: <be62573b0905111306j50989697k755312d6e4fdd5e3@mail.gmail.com> <20090511201238.GA12032@caradoc.them.org> <be62573b0905111336y4a664f42v21aa2b21f9252623@mail.gmail.com> <m2eiuu1xf9.fsf@igel.home> <be62573b0905120854w4c1269f4r6698e231b9b4ff6e@mail.gmail.com>

Matt Fischer <mattfischer84@gmail.com> writes:

> On a lot of the architectures (including m68k), it looks like it does.
>  Problem is that since ARM has actively moved away from requiring a
> frame pointer in their ABI, as Daniel mentioned, you can't be sure at
> the time of the clone() call whether you should be modifying r11 at
> all.

Since r11 is not used for argument passing and the child part of the
clone call never returns modifying the register shouldn't be a problem,
is it?

Andreas.

-- 
Andreas Schwab, schwab@linux-m68k.org
GPG Key fingerprint = 58CA 54C7 6D53 942B 1756  01D3 44D5 214B 8276 4ED5
"And now for something completely different."

Follow-Ups:
- Re: backtrace() from a pthread on ARM
  - From: Matt Fischer

References:
- backtrace() from a pthread on ARM
  - From: Matt Fischer
- Re: backtrace() from a pthread on ARM
  - From: Daniel Jacobowitz
- Re: backtrace() from a pthread on ARM
  - From: Matt Fischer
- Re: backtrace() from a pthread on ARM
  - From: Andreas Schwab
- Re: backtrace() from a pthread on ARM
  - From: Matt Fischer

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]