On Mon, 19 Sep 2011, Laura Abbott wrote:
>
> On Mon, September 19, 2011 4:22 pm, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> > On Mon, 19 Sep 2011, Laura Abbott wrote:
> >
> >> The 64bit division functions never had unwinding annotations
> >> added. This prevents a backtrace from being printed within
> >> the function and if a division by 0 occurs. Add the annotations.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Laura Abbott <lauraa@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >> ---
> >> arch/arm/lib/div64.S | 8 ++++++++
> >> 1 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/arch/arm/lib/div64.S b/arch/arm/lib/div64.S
> >> index faa7748..e55c484 100644
> >> --- a/arch/arm/lib/div64.S
> >> +++ b/arch/arm/lib/div64.S
> >> @@ -13,6 +13,7 @@
> >> */
> >>
> >> #include <linux/linkage.h>
> >> +#include <asm/unwind.h>
> >>
> >> #ifdef __ARMEB__
> >> #define xh r0
> >> @@ -44,6 +45,7 @@
> >> */
> >>
> >> ENTRY(__do_div64)
> >> +UNWIND(.fnstart)
> >>
> >> @ Test for easy paths first.
> >> subs ip, r4, #1
> >> @@ -189,7 +191,12 @@ ENTRY(__do_div64)
> >> moveq yh, xh
> >> moveq xh, #0
> >> moveq pc, lr
> >> +UNWIND(.fnend)
> >>
> >> +UNWIND(.fnstart)
> >> +UNWIND(.pad #4)
> >> +UNWIND(.save {lr})
> >> +Ldiv0_64:
> >
> > Why this phony fnend+fnstart here?
> >
> If a division by 0 occurs, we need to be able to access the saved LR on
> the stack which is setup right before calling the __div0 function. This
> can't go at the top of __do_div64 because if we try to do a backtrace from
> within __do_div64 the annotation won't be correct as the LR was never
> saved on the stack.
I suppose the debug infrastructure always assume the same stack frame
for the whole function, hence you can't put that .pad and .save right
before the call to __div0 without the .fnstart and have it effective
only there?
If so then:
Acked-by: Nicolas Pitre <nicolas.pitre@xxxxxxxxxx>
Nicolas
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arm-msm" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
