Le samedi 5 janvier 2013 16:50:32, Thomas Preud'homme a écrit :
> What would you think of this simpler patch instead? It works on you fp.c
> code at least and it should work for any level.
>
> It's a simple proof of concept as of now because I'm not sure how the
> addresses of local variables are
Le samedi 5 janvier 2013 16:35:44, vous avez écrit :
> >
> > Are you sure the code you compiled for ARM doesn't contain
> > __builtin_return_address instead of __builtin_frame_address?
>
> Thomas, thanks for correcting my arm assembly errors. I agree I did make
> mistakes, but I'm sure __builtin_
What would you think of this simpler patch instead? It works on you fp.c code
at least and it should work for any level.
It's a simple proof of concept as of now because I'm not sure how the
addresses of local variables are stored in tcc. Thus, I'm not sure that this
doesn't break access to loc
On Sat, Jan 05, 2013 at 03:36:49PM +0100, Thomas Preud'homme wrote:
> Le jeudi 13 décembre 2012 17:55:41, vous avez écrit :
>
> [SNIP]
>
> >
> > from arch/arm/kernel/stacktrace.c:
> >
> > * With framepointer enabled, a simple function prologue looks like
> > this: * mov ip, sp
> >
Le jeudi 13 décembre 2012 17:55:41, vous avez écrit :
[SNIP]
>
> from arch/arm/kernel/stacktrace.c:
>
> * With framepointer enabled, a simple function prologue looks like
> this: * mov ip, sp
> * stmdb sp!, {fp, ip, lr, pc}
> * sub fp, ip, #4
> *
> * A simple
Daniel, Thomas, first of all I'm sorry it took me so long to reply.
( Also, if there are some stupid mistakes wrt arm assembly, please forgive
me. I've tried to make my analisys resilent to maybe-present
off-by-ones, and reply sooner than later, not spending more
20min*several-days to be 100
Kirill Smelkov wrote:
Also grischka writes:
btest is not a feature that we can't recommend to use
really (at least as long as tcc -btest tcc.c doesn't produce anything
useful),
FYI, as of mob a55ecf6d it now does, so please don't treat -b mode as
second class citizen anymore.
Ok. I admit th
On Thu, Dec 06, 2012 at 02:23:25PM +0100, Thomas Preud'homme wrote:
> Le jeudi 6 décembre 2012 04:50:55, vous avez écrit :
> > >
> > > Hi Kirill,
> > >
> > > did you make any progress on the issue since Daniel's comments? Could you
> > > let me know when you push a patch so that I can test it and
Thomas Preud'homme wrote:
Grischka, what do you think of releasing a rc1 after that? We got plenty of
features merged since last release and 3 years start to be quite a long time.
I know there is still many things to improve, including some I care about, but
it might attract new contributions o
Le jeudi 6 décembre 2012 04:50:55, vous avez écrit :
> >
> > Hi Kirill,
> >
> > did you make any progress on the issue since Daniel's comments? Could you
> > let me know when you push a patch so that I can test it and bump master
> > to equal the mob branch?
>
> Hi Thomas,
>
> Unfortunately not
On Wed, Dec 05, 2012 at 11:26:32AM +0100, Thomas Preud'homme wrote:
> Le vendredi 30 novembre 2012 00:43:07, Daniel Glöckner a écrit :
> >
> > You should not look at a leaf function to derive the GCC stack frame.
> > It is probably different from the generic stack frame because GCC
> > knows this
Le vendredi 30 novembre 2012 00:43:07, Daniel Glöckner a écrit :
>
> You should not look at a leaf function to derive the GCC stack frame.
> It is probably different from the generic stack frame because GCC
> knows this function will never be part of a stack trace done by
> another function of the
On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 09:43:33PM +0400, Kirill Smelkov wrote:
> tcc first saves r0 & r1, and only then fp:
>
> $ ./arm-eabi-tcc -c y.c
> $ arm-linux-gnueabi-objdump -d y.o
>
> :
>0: e1a0c00dmov ip, sp
>4: e92d0003push{r0, r1}
>
On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 12:05:19AM +0400, Kirill Smelkov wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 24, 2012 at 02:43:34PM +0100, Thomas Preud'homme wrote:
> > Le samedi 24 novembre 2012 10:02:54, Kirill Smelkov a écrit :
> > >
> > > Thanks for the info. The progress on my side is as follows: I've learned
> > > arm ass
14 matches
Mail list logo
