> On Oct 30, 2015, at 13:25, AKASHI Takahiro wrote:
>
> Stack tracer on arm64, check_stack(), is uniqeue in the following
> points:
> * analyze a function prologue of a traced function to estimate a more
> accurate stack pointer value, replacing naive ' + 0x10.'
> * use walk_stackframe(), inste
Jungseok,
On 11/01/2015 05:30 PM, Jungseok Lee wrote:
On Oct 30, 2015, at 2:25 PM, AKASHI Takahiro wrote:
Hi Akashi,
Stack tracer on arm64, check_stack(), is uniqeue in the following
points:
* analyze a function prologue of a traced function to estimate a more
accurate stack pointer value,
On Oct 30, 2015, at 2:25 PM, AKASHI Takahiro wrote:
Hi Akashi,
> Stack tracer on arm64, check_stack(), is uniqeue in the following
> points:
> * analyze a function prologue of a traced function to estimate a more
> accurate stack pointer value, replacing naive ' + 0x10.'
> * use walk_stackframe(
Stack tracer on arm64, check_stack(), is uniqeue in the following
points:
* analyze a function prologue of a traced function to estimate a more
accurate stack pointer value, replacing naive ' + 0x10.'
* use walk_stackframe(), instead of slurping stack contents as orignal
check_stack() does, to
4 matches
Mail list logo