On Sun, 28 Jun 2026, Pali Rohár wrote:
Evgeny, you bring this issue for arm64 and I have prepared a fix which
is in the attachment of the previous email. Could you please check and
test it? I really need feeback from your configuration / setup of
toolchain to know if it address your issue. Because I do not have it.
Martin, if you have a time, could you do (code) review for first two
changes which are for amd64 (which is rewriting / replacing the
__mingw_init_ehandler implementation)?
Those patches feel like super overkill.
I don't think we should have code to construct SEH unwind code by hand
here. I really can't see why we should need to do that.
Why do we need to complicate every detail 10x to make our code even more
inflated and unmaintainable?
We can't just try to add some random inline assembly snippets and calls to
__builtin_frame_address() and hope that the compiler generates a specific
form of prolog for the function based on that. If we ever try to do that,
we're doing something really wrong. (And the wrong thing can also just be
that you're trying to fix a case which we shouldn't try to fix.)
I explicit do _not_ want those patches merged.
For builds with SEH disabled, I don't think anybody expects all of "make
check" to pass. (Heck, it was only about a year ago that we even made
"make check" work at all again.) A toolchain can be very well functioning
for a lot of practical usecases without having those details handled in
the right way.
For builds with SEH disabled, just ifdef out whatever constructs don't
compile in that form.
// Martin
_______________________________________________
Mingw-w64-public mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/mingw-w64-public
