On 08/02/2011 06:27 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
Here is the updated patch. I updated REG_VALUE_IN_UNWIND_CONTEXT
document and added ASSUME_EXTENDED_UNWIND_CONTEXT. OK for
trunk?
Let's say OK on Monday if nobody objects before then.
Jason
On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 2:02 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
> On 06/30/2011 04:47 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>>
>> +@defmac REG_VALUE_IN_UNWIND_CONTEXT
>> +
>> +Define this macro if the target stores register values as
>> +@code{_Unwind_Word} type in unwind context. The default is to
>> +store register values a
On 06/30/2011 04:47 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
+@defmac REG_VALUE_IN_UNWIND_CONTEXT
+
+Define this macro if the target stores register values as
+@code{_Unwind_Word} type in unwind context. The default is to
+store register values as @code{void *} type.
+
+@end defmac
This ought to suggest why a port
PING.
On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 3:01 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> Hi Richard, Jason,
>
> Is this patch
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-06/msg02401.html
>
> OK for trunk?
>
> Thanks.
>
>
> H.J.
> On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 3:21 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>> Ping.
>>
>> On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 2:20 PM, H.J.
Hi Richard, Jason,
Is this patch
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-06/msg02401.html
OK for trunk?
Thanks.
H.J.
On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 3:21 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> Ping.
>
> On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 2:20 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>> PING.
>>
>> On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 1:47 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>>>
Ping.
On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 2:20 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> PING.
>
> On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 1:47 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>> On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 12:02 PM, Richard Henderson wrote:
>>> On 06/30/2011 11:23 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
+#ifdef REG_VALUE_IN_UNWIND_CONTEXT
+typedef _Unwind_Word _Unwind_C
PING.
On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 1:47 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 12:02 PM, Richard Henderson wrote:
>> On 06/30/2011 11:23 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>>> +#ifdef REG_VALUE_IN_UNWIND_CONTEXT
>>> +typedef _Unwind_Word _Unwind_Context_Reg_Val;
>>> +/* Signal frame context. */
>>> +#define S
On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 7:25 AM, Rainer Orth
wrote:
> "H.J. Lu" writes:
>
>>> Then move it below the definition of struct _Unwind_Context with a
>>
>> It won't work since I need to define a macro before struct _Unwind_Context.
>
> Then this does seem to be a case for libgcc_tm_file indeed. Ugly
"H.J. Lu" writes:
>> Then move it below the definition of struct _Unwind_Context with a
>
> It won't work since I need to define a macro before struct _Unwind_Context.
Then this does seem to be a case for libgcc_tm_file indeed. Ugly that
the unwinder configuration has to be split between two di
On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 7:02 AM, Rainer Orth
wrote:
> "H.J. Lu" writes:
>
What is your suggestion?
>>>
>>> How about moving the md-unwind-support.h include up to the rest of the
>>> includes? The headers usually only define MD_FALLBACK_FRAME_STATE_FOR
>>> and perhaps MD_FROB_UPDATE_CONTEXT,
"H.J. Lu" writes:
>>> What is your suggestion?
>>
>> How about moving the md-unwind-support.h include up to the rest of the
>> includes? The headers usually only define MD_FALLBACK_FRAME_STATE_FOR
>> and perhaps MD_FROB_UPDATE_CONTEXT, everything else is an internal
>> helper macro, so order sho
On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 6:37 AM, Rainer Orth
wrote:
> "H.J. Lu" writes:
>
>> On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 2:02 AM, Rainer Orth
>> wrote:
>>> "H.J. Lu" writes:
>>>
Here is the updated patch. It works on simple tests.
I am running full tests. I kept config/i386/value-unwind.h
since li
"H.J. Lu" writes:
> On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 2:02 AM, Rainer Orth
> wrote:
>> "H.J. Lu" writes:
>>
>>> Here is the updated patch. It works on simple tests.
>>> I am running full tests. I kept config/i386/value-unwind.h
>>> since libgcc/md-unwind-support.h is included too late
>>> in unwind-dw2
On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 2:02 AM, Rainer Orth
wrote:
> "H.J. Lu" writes:
>
>> Here is the updated patch. It works on simple tests.
>> I am running full tests. I kept config/i386/value-unwind.h
>> since libgcc/md-unwind-support.h is included too late
>> in unwind-dw2.c and I don't want to move it
"H.J. Lu" writes:
> Here is the updated patch. It works on simple tests.
> I am running full tests. I kept config/i386/value-unwind.h
> since libgcc/md-unwind-support.h is included too late
> in unwind-dw2.c and I don't want to move it to be on
> the safe side.
Oh please, don't pile hack upon
On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 12:02 PM, Richard Henderson wrote:
> On 06/30/2011 11:23 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>> +#ifdef REG_VALUE_IN_UNWIND_CONTEXT
>> +typedef _Unwind_Word _Unwind_Context_Reg_Val;
>> +/* Signal frame context. */
>> +#define SIGNAL_FRAME_BIT ((_Unwind_Word) 1 >> 0)
>
> There's absolutely
On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 11:09 AM, Rainer Orth
wrote:
> "H.J. Lu" writes:
>
>>> Why all those contortions with i386/value-unwind.h? It seems far
>>> simpler to me to put this into libgcc/config/i386/linux-unwind.h and be
>>> done with it.
>>
>> I did it this way so that other non-Linux x32 target
On 06/30/2011 11:23 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> +#ifdef REG_VALUE_IN_UNWIND_CONTEXT
> +typedef _Unwind_Word _Unwind_Context_Reg_Val;
> +/* Signal frame context. */
> +#define SIGNAL_FRAME_BIT ((_Unwind_Word) 1 >> 0)
There's absolutely no reason to re-define this.
So what if the value is most-significant
On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 11:09 AM, Rainer Orth
wrote:
> "H.J. Lu" writes:
>
>>> Why all those contortions with i386/value-unwind.h? It seems far
>>> simpler to me to put this into libgcc/config/i386/linux-unwind.h and be
>>> done with it.
>>
>> I did it this way so that other non-Linux x32 target
"H.J. Lu" writes:
>> Why all those contortions with i386/value-unwind.h? It seems far
>> simpler to me to put this into libgcc/config/i386/linux-unwind.h and be
>> done with it.
>
> I did it this way so that other non-Linux x32 targets can use it.
Such as? Currently, only Linux, Windows and So
On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 11:03 AM, Rainer Orth
wrote:
> "H.J. Lu" writes:
>
>>> gcc/
>>>
>>> 2011-06-30 H.J. Lu
>>>
>>> * config.gcc (libgcc_tm_file): Add i386/value-unwind.h for
>>> Linux/x86.
>>>
>>> * system.h (REG_VALUE_IN_UNWIND_CONTEXT): Poisoned.
>>>
>>> * unw
"H.J. Lu" writes:
>> gcc/
>>
>> 2011-06-30 H.J. Lu
>>
>> * config.gcc (libgcc_tm_file): Add i386/value-unwind.h for
>> Linux/x86.
>>
>> * system.h (REG_VALUE_IN_UNWIND_CONTEXT): Poisoned.
>>
>> * unwind-dw2.c (_Unwind_Context_Reg_Val): New.
>> (_Unwind_Get_Un
On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 10:37 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 9:08 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>> On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 8:03 AM, Jason Merrill wrote:
>>> On 06/30/2011 10:42 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
Register may be saved/restored either by address or value. My patch
doesn't change
On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 9:08 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 8:03 AM, Jason Merrill wrote:
>> On 06/30/2011 10:42 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>>>
>>> Register may be saved/restored either by address or value. My patch
>>> doesn't change the reg field. The other way will be
>>>
>>> #ifdef USE
On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 8:03 AM, Jason Merrill wrote:
> On 06/30/2011 10:42 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>>
>> Register may be saved/restored either by address or value. My patch
>> doesn't change the reg field. The other way will be
>>
>> #ifdef USE_UNWIND_WORD
>> _Unwind_Word reg[DWARF_FRAME_REGISTER
On 06/30/2011 10:42 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
Register may be saved/restored either by address or value. My patch
doesn't change the reg field. The other way will be
#ifdef USE_UNWIND_WORD
_Unwind_Word reg[DWARF_FRAME_REGISTERS+1];
#else
void *reg[DWARF_FRAME_REGISTERS+1];
#endif
We need i
On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 7:08 AM, Jason Merrill wrote:
> On 06/28/2011 02:53 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>>
>> This updated patch. It allows multiple unwind contexts. It replaces
>>
>> char by_value[DWARF_FRAME_REGISTERS+1];
>>
>> with
>>
>> _Unwind_Word value[DWARF_FRAME_REGISTERS+1];
>>
>> The code is c
On 06/28/2011 02:53 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
This updated patch. It allows multiple unwind contexts. It replaces
char by_value[DWARF_FRAME_REGISTERS+1];
with
_Unwind_Word value[DWARF_FRAME_REGISTERS+1];
The code is cleaner than conditionally replacing
void *reg[DWARF_FRAME_REGISTERS+1];
with
_
On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 7:58 AM, Jason Merrill wrote:
> On 06/26/2011 05:58 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>>
>> The current unwind library scheme provides only one unwind
>> context and is backward compatible with multiple different unwind
>> contexts from multiple unwind libraries:
>>
>> http://gcc.gnu.org/
On 06/26/2011 05:58 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
The current unwind library scheme provides only one unwind
context and is backward compatible with multiple different unwind
contexts from multiple unwind libraries:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2006-12/msg01769.html
My patch fixes UNITS_PER_WORD > si
On Sun, Jun 26, 2011 at 2:45 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
> On 06/26/2011 04:06 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>>
>> I added a short paragraph in the updated patch:
>>
>> +@defmac UNIQUE_UNWIND_CONTEXT
>> +
>> +Define this macro if the target only supports single unqiue unwind
>> +context. The default is to supp
On 06/26/2011 04:06 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
I added a short paragraph in the updated patch:
+@defmac UNIQUE_UNWIND_CONTEXT
+
+Define this macro if the target only supports single unqiue unwind
+context. The default is to support multiple unwind contexts.
I saw that. I don't know what it means.
J
On Sun, Jun 26, 2011 at 12:54 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
> On 06/25/2011 12:13 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>>
>> This patch introduces UNIQUE_UNWIND_CONTEXT
>
> Where is this documented? The ABI document doesn't seem to say anything
> about it.
>
I added a short paragraph in the updated patch:
http://gcc.
On 06/25/2011 12:13 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
This patch introduces UNIQUE_UNWIND_CONTEXT
Where is this documented? The ABI document doesn't seem to say anything
about it.
Jason
On Sat, Jun 25, 2011 at 1:19 PM, Joseph S. Myers
wrote:
> On Sat, 25 Jun 2011, H.J. Lu wrote:
>
>> +#ifndef UNIQUE_UNWIND_CONTEXT
>
> The use of #ifndef seems to imply that this is a target macro, to be
> defined in libgcc_tm.h. In that case it should be documented, and
> poisoned in system.h und
On Sat, 25 Jun 2011, H.J. Lu wrote:
> +#ifndef UNIQUE_UNWIND_CONTEXT
The use of #ifndef seems to imply that this is a target macro, to be
defined in libgcc_tm.h. In that case it should be documented, and
poisoned in system.h under the "only used for code built for the target"
case, and this:
Hi,
This patch introduces UNIQUE_UNWIND_CONTEXT and properly saves/stores
registers with UNITS_PER_WORD > sizeof (void *) as suggested in
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-03/msg01526.html
OK for trunk?
Thanks.
H.J.
---
2011-04-09 H.J. Lu
PR other/48007
* unwind-dw2.c
37 matches
Mail list logo
