[RFC] Wrong register numbers in .dwarf_frame on Linux/PowerPC

Ulrich Weigand uweigand@de.ibm.com
Tue Nov 27 18:49:00 GMT 2012


Mark Wielaard wrote:

> Which other unwinders are out there, that might rely on the current
> numbering?

Well, runtime unwinders using .eh_frame should be fine, since this
uses (and has always used) consistently the GCC numbering.  I don't
know if there are other unwinders using .dwarf_frame ...

> The Systemtap runtime unwinder (*) currently is incomplete
> (and in one case wrong since the numbering overlaps), so it doesn't
> really matter much which solution you pick (we will just have to watch
> out and fix things to be as consistent as possible when your change goes
> through). If you do change the numbering it would be ideal if there was
> a way to detect which one was in place (although it is probably hopeless
> because depending on which GCC version is in use there can already be
> different numberings).

The change will most likely be to consistently use GCC numbering in
.dwarf_frame as well, which changes only the encoding of the condition
code register.  Since you're not using that at all in systemtap, you
shouldn't be affected.

> BTW. The reason the systemtap runtime unwinder is
> a little wrong here is because on all other architectures we assume
> eh_frame and debug_frame DWARF register numberings are equal, is ppc
> really the only architecture for which that isn't true, or were we just
> lucky?

As far as Linux goes, yes, ppc was the only architecture with a
different encoding between .eh_frame and .dwarf_frame.  The only
other such platforms I'm aware of are Darwin on 32-bit i386, and
some other operating systems on ppc (AIX, Darwin, BSD).

Bye,
Ulrich

-- 
  Dr. Ulrich Weigand
  GNU Toolchain for Linux on System z and Cell BE
  Ulrich.Weigand@de.ibm.com



More information about the Binutils mailing list