On 23/05/2019 00:33, Vicente Bergas wrote: > On Monday, May 20, 2019 11:33:39 PM CEST, Richard Earnshaw (lists) wrote: >> On 20/05/2019 18:08, Vicente Bergas wrote: >>> On Monday, May 20, 2019 6:44:19 PM CEST, Richard Earnshaw (lists) >>> wrote: ... >> >> I'm not sure what you mean by 'reserved'. The AAPCS does not reserve it. > > I was meaning that r11 has an specific name assigned: fp, although it looks > like it is just for historical reasons for what follows. Yes, it's difficult to remove the name as it has occasionally crept into use via inline assembly code that relies on it. >> However, there are some environments where a very simple stack-based >> chain can prove very useful, because it is expensive to have to decode >> the dwarf unwind data on the fly (it doesn't usually matter in debuggers >> since the target program is normally stopped when unwinding is being >> done). So we are looking at what options are available to us at this >> point. In the mean time your only real option is either something you >> construct yourself, or to use the information recorded in either the >> dwarf data or the C++ exception unwinding tables (you can ask GCC to >> include this even when compiling languages other than C). >> >> R. > > I've already solved my issue with an stack on the application. Anyways, > those unwinding tables are interesting. You are talking about using > -funwind-tables with (e.g.) plain C, aren't you? > Yes. R.
