> -----Original Message-----
> From: gcc-patches-ow...@gcc.gnu.org [mailto:gcc-patches-ow...@gcc.gnu.org] On
> Behalf Of Jonathan Wakely
> Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2014 5:16 PM
> To: Ramana Radhakrishnan
> Cc: Tony Wang; gcc-patches; d...@debian.org; aph-...@littlepinkcloud.com;
> Richard Earnshaw; Ramana
> Radhakrishnan; libstd...@gcc.gnu.org
> Subject: Re: [Patch ARM] Fix PR target/56846
>
> On 09/09/14 09:33 +0100, Ramana Radhakrishnan wrote:
> >I'd like another review here however it looks sane to me. You need to
> >CC libstd...@gcc.gnu.org for libstdc++ patches. Your email doesn't say
> >how you tested this patch. Can you make sure you've run this through a
> >bootstrap and regression test on GNU/Linux and a cross regression test
> >on arm-none-eabi with no regressions ?
>
> Thanks for forwarding this, Ramana.
>
> I don't know the EABI unwinder code so if Ramana is OK with it and no
> other ARM maintainers have any comments then the patch is OK with me
> too, with a couple of small tweaks ...
Thanks for your comment, Jonathan.
I will send a new patch to cover your comment.
BR,
Tony
>
> >>
> >> gcc/libstdc++-v3/ChangeLog:
> >> 2014-8-25 Tony Wang <tony.w...@arm.com>
> >>
> >> PR target/56846
> >> * libsupc++/eh_personality.cc: Return with
> >> CONTINUE_UNWINDING
> >> when meet with the unwind state pattern:
> >> _US_VIRTUAL_UNWIND_FRAME |
> >> _US_FORCE_UNWIND
>
> The changelog should say which function is being changed:
>
> * libsupc++/eh_personality.cc (__gxx_personality_v0): ...
>
> Or maybe:
>
> * libsupc++/eh_personality.cc (PERSONALITY_FUNCTION): ...
>
> Instead of "when meet with the unwind state pattern" please say "when the
> state
> pattern contains"
>
> >> diff --git a/libstdc++-v3/libsupc++/eh_personality.cc
> >> b/libstdc++-v3/libsupc++/eh_personality.cc
> >> index f315a83..c2b30e9 100644
> >> --- a/libstdc++-v3/libsupc++/eh_personality.cc
> >> +++ b/libstdc++-v3/libsupc++/eh_personality.cc
> >> @@ -378,6 +378,11 @@ PERSONALITY_FUNCTION (int version,
> >> switch (state & _US_ACTION_MASK)
> >> {
> >> case _US_VIRTUAL_UNWIND_FRAME:
> >> + // If the unwind state pattern is _US_VIRTUAL_UNWIND_FRAME |
> >> + // _US_FORCE_UNWIND, we don't need to search for any handler
> >> + // as it is not a real exception. Just unwind the stack.
>
> I think this comment would be easier to read if the expression with the two
> constants was all on one line:
>
> // If the unwind state pattern is
> // _US_VIRTUAL_UNWIND_FRAME | _US_FORCE_UNWIND
> // then we don't need to search for any handler as it is not a real
> // exception. Just unwind the stack.
>
> >> + if (state & _US_FORCE_UNWIND)
> >> + CONTINUE_UNWINDING;
> >> actions = _UA_SEARCH_PHASE;
> >> break;
> >>
> >>
