Re: gas: Question about .cfi_startproc and nested labels

[Martin Galvan <martin dot galvan at tallertechnologies dot com>]

On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 6:58 AM, Jan Beulich <JBeulich@suse.com> wrote:
>>>> On 17.11.14 at 06:09, <martin.galvan@tallertechnologies.com> wrote:
>> Hi there! I'm trying to add some CFI directives to an existing ARM
>> code, and I noticed sometimes we have stuff like this:
>>
>> some_label:
>> ...
>>
>> some_other_label:
>> ...
>>
>> END
>>
>> where "END" is a macro that expands to the appropriate epilogue/return
>> instructions. If we want to mark those labels as functions, I know
>> .cfi_endproc should be placed right after the END macro, but what
>> about .cfi_startproc? I'm thinking of doing something like:
>>
>> some_label:
>> .cfi_startproc
>> ...
>>
>> some_other_label:
>> .cfi_startproc
>> ...
>>
>> END
>> .cfi_endproc
>>
>> However, I'm not sure if that would be right. Will gas realize
>> some_label and some_other_label are meant to be different functions?
>
> No - these two directives have to strictly alternate. I.e. you'd need
> another .cfi_endproc right before the second label, or drop the
> .cfi_startproc right after it. Note that to the unwinder it doesn't
> really matter whether some internal label of a function is externally
> callable - all it cares about is that the unwinder state is correct at
> that (as well as any other) point.

Thanks a lot for your answer! One more question: what happens if I
call .cfi_restore_state without having called .cfi_remember_state
first? I've seen a couple of places where people seem to be doing
that, but I'm not sure of what the results would be.

-- 

MartÃn GalvÃn

Software Engineer

Taller Technologies Argentina


San Lorenzo 47, 3rd Floor, Office 5

CÃrdoba, Argentina

Phone: 54 351 4217888 / +54 351 4218211