Tomasz Grabiec wrote:
> Dnia 2009-11-17, wto o godzinie 16:39 +0200, Pekka Enberg pisze:
>> Tomek Grabiec wrote:
>>> The function was setting elem to the init_stack_trace_elem_current()'s
>>> frame which is error prone because after function returns its stack
>>> frame might be overriden by another function calls done from the
>>> caller.
>>>
>>> A fix for that is to make init_stack_trace_elem_current() set elem to
>>> the caller's frame. We must make it a macro becasue we can't rely on
>>> __builtin_frame_address(1) because of gcc optimizations.
>> We still have few instances of __builtin_frame_address() in the code. I
>> guess we need to fix those up as well?
>
> We must only be carefull about __builtin_frame_address(x) when x > 0.
> It is safe to call __builtin_frame_address(0). It is also safe to
> call __builtin_frame_address(x) for x>0 when it's used inside a function
> which is directly called from JIT and from JIT only.
Yeah, I meant that we have few instances of __builtin_frame_address(1)
that probably need fixing.
Pekka
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let Crystal Reports handle the reporting - Free Crystal Reports 2008 30-Day
trial. Simplify your report design, integration and deployment - and focus on
what you do best, core application coding. Discover what's new with
Crystal Reports now. http://p.sf.net/sfu/bobj-july
_______________________________________________
Jatovm-devel mailing list
Jatovm-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jatovm-devel
