On 3/14/2012 4:15 AM, Dave Martin wrote:
For functions like this, the unwinding requirements are different
depending on where we are in the function. But the unwinder annotations
don't remember exact instruction locations; only the extent of the
whole unwind block is recorded, along with the sequence (but not
location) of unwinder directives.
As is, the unwinding may be wrong depending on which part of the function
is executing when the fault occurs.
Hmmmm, I thought I could get away with only one annotation based on the
structure of memset/memzero but looking again you are right, it really
requires multiple annotations to be correct.
It may be possible to split the function into multiple unwind blocks,
e.g.:
ENTRY(somefunc)
UNWIND(.fnstart)
UNWIND(.save {r4,lr})
stfmd sp!, {r4,lr}
/* check something */
blt _the_other_way
/* maybe carry out our job this way */
ldmfd sp!, {r4,lr}
UNWIND(.fnend)
_the_other_way:
UNWIND(.fnstart)
UNWIND(.save {r4,lr})
UNWIND(.save {r5-r8})
stmfd sp!, {r5-r8} /* !! */
/* carry out our job the other way */
ldmfd sp!, {r5-r8}
ldmfd sp!, {r4,pc} /* !! */
UNWIND(.fnend)
This is still not exactly right (it's hard to be exactly right,
since the unwind tables are not meant for handling asynchronous
unwinding), but unwinding should be correct for the main bits of code
where most time is spent and/or faults are most likely (the "carry out
our job" comments).
Would a compiler be able to generate code such as this and still
generate correct completely unwinding annotations? Or if the compiler
knows unwinding is necessary, is the only option to generate code in
'unwindable blocks'? (alternatively, no compiler is smart/stupid enough
to generate this code?)
You'd have to experiment to see whether the backtracer does something
sensible with unwind tables like this. It might need tweaking to
find the correct function symbol if a fault occurs in the second
unwind block for example ... that perhaps it will already do the
right thing.
Yes, I'll look into this. memcpy is missing annotations as well but that
code is significantly more convoluted.
Cheers
---Dave
Thanks,
Laura
--
Sent by an employee of the Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc.
The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum.
--
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
