On Thu, Jun 24, 2021 at 03:40:21PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote: > regular unwinds (e.g. so that we can have a backtrace idicate when a > step is not reliable, like x86 does with '?'), and to do that we need to > be a little more accurate. There was the idea that was discussed a bit when I was more actively working on this of just refactoring our unwinder infrastructure to be a lot more like the x86 and (IIRC) S/390 in form. Part of the thing there was that it'd mean that even where we're not able to actually share code we'd have more of a common baseline for how things work and what works. It'd make review, especially cross architecture review, of what's going on a bit easier too - see some of the concerns Josh had about the differences here for example. It'd be a relatively big bit of refactoring though.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
