Pekka Enberg wrote:
> 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.

I went through __builtin_frame_address() uses, and the only one that
seems invalid to me is the one in trace_magic_trampoline() in
jit/trace-jit.c. Is there another use you're worried about?

Tomek


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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

Reply via email to