This is the mail archive of the
libc-ports@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the libc-ports project.
Re: backtrace() from a pthread on ARM
- From: lxusr <gnanasekar dot r29 at gmail dot com>
- To: libc-ports at sourceware dot org
- Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2012 00:50:37 -0700 (PDT)
- 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> <m2zldil2w2.fsf@igel.home> <be62573b0905120924x5a943ebfue3eba03c77fa404d@mail.gmail.com>
I am facing a similar problem wherein if I do a bt I see corrupted stack
whenever clone gets called(ARM target). Can you please tell me what is the
fix you applied to resolve the problem?
Sekar
Matt Fischer-2 wrote:
>
> On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 11:09 AM, Andreas Schwab <schwab@linux-m68k.org>
> wrote:
>> 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."
>>
>
> I thought of that after I sent the email above. It does seem like
> that wouldn't have any negative side effects, at least in my limited
> understanding of how all of this machinery works.
>
> At the very least, I'm going to try making that change locally, which
> ought to fix the problem we're seeing. Would mainline be interested
> in a patch, or is this just labeled as undefined behavior that
> shouldn't be messed with?
>
> --Matt
>
>
--
View this message in context: http://old.nabble.com/backtrace%28%29-from-a-pthread-on-ARM-tp23490538p33492571.html
Sent from the Sourceware - libc-ports mailing list archive at Nabble.com.