On 04/01/2012 23.36, Mike Frysinger wrote: > On Tuesday 03 January 2012 11:34:40 Carmelo AMOROSO wrote: >> On 01/01/2012 0.10, Mike Frysinger wrote: >>> On Thursday 22 December 2011 13:19:22 Carmelo AMOROSO wrote: >>>> On 22/12/2011 15.30, Carmelo Amoroso wrote: >>>>> For backtrace to work is enough to use -funwind-tables >>>>> instead of -fexceptions. >>>> >>>> Indeed, I'm wondering if -fasynchrous-unwind-tables should >>>> be used rather then funwind-tables. On my arh SH4 the >>>> generated code is exactly the same. I'm not expert of DWARF, >>>> neither gcc documentation regarding the differences between >>>> -fexceptions, -funwind-tables or -fasynchronous-unwind-tables >>>> helped me so much. >>>> >>>> someone else has clearer idea ? >>> >>> for backtrace, we just want unwind-tables, so using that over >>> -fexceptions is good (since we don't have to handle exceptions >>> in this code). as for the async vs non-async unwind-tables, i >>> don't know the answer to that. >> >> I've reported here below the extract from gcc manual. Reading it >> again, it seems to me that using -fasynchronous-unwind-tables is >> the best as it's purpose is actually to create the dwarf2 >> information, in the other two cases (-fexceptions or >> -funwind-tables) it seems to be a side effect. > > glibc seems to prefer -fasynchronous-unwind-tables, so that's > probably good for us too > > we need -fexceptions if the funcs themselves need to handle > exceptions. but if we only want other things to be able to build a > backtrace across the call, then -fasynchronous-unwind-tables should > be sufficient. -mike
agreed. I'll commit an update shortly. carmelo _______________________________________________ uClibc mailing list uClibc@uclibc.org http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/uclibc