On Thu, Mar 21, 2024 at 10:22:30AM +0000, David Laight wrote: > How aggressively does the compiler optimise 'noreturn' functions? I've seen cases where the compiler emits a BL instruction as the very last thing in the function, and nothing after it. This is where the problem lies - because the link register value created by the BL instruction will point to the instruction after the BL which will _not_ part of the function that invoked the BL. That will probably cause issues for the ELF unwinder, which means this issue probably goes beyond _just_ printing the function name. I have vague memories that Ard has been involved in the unwinder, maybe he could comment on this problem? Maybe we need the unwinder itself to do the correction? I also wonder whether we should only do the correction if we detect that we're pointing at the first instruction of a function, and the previous instruction in the text segment was a BL. -- RMK's Patch system: https://www.armlinux.org.uk/developer/patches/ FTTP is here! 80Mbps down 10Mbps up. Decent connectivity at last!
