Jeffrey Law - Re: [m68k 08/13] unwind support for signal handler (original) (raw)

This is the mail archive of the gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.orgmailing list for the GCC project.

• From: Jeffrey Law
• To: Richard Sandiford
• Cc: Roman Zippel , gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
• Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 10:54:36 -0700
• Subject: Re: [m68k 08/13] unwind support for signal handler
• References: 20070130112615.782382000@linux-m68k.org 20070130114607.549279000@linux-m68k.org <1170696244.4061.130.camel@sweet.slc.redhat.com> <Pine.LNX.4.64.0702072209500.14457@scrub.home> <1171301031.4134.110.camel@sweet.slc.redhat.com> <878xf3e0db.fsf@firetop.home>
• Reply-to: law at redhat dot com

On Mon, 2007-02-12 at 17:45 +0000, Richard Sandiford wrote:

Jeffrey Law law@redhat.com writes:

On Wed, 2007-02-07 at 22:12 +0100, Roman Zippel wrote:

Hi,

On Mon, 5 Feb 2007, Jeffrey Law wrote:

This adds support for unwinding through linux signal trampolines.

2007-01-30 Roman Zippel zippel@linux-m68k.org

* config/m68k/linux.h (MD_UNWIND_SUPPORT): Define.
* config/m68k/linux-unwind.h: New file.

Didn't Richard S. post a patch for this already, or am I mis-remembering?

He did, but it had a few problems, this is my version of the patch with the ColdFire bits added. Richard -- any problems with going with Roman's unwind bits? I'm really not that qualified to judge the implementation as I'm not a dwarf-unwind or coldfire expert.

I ran a GNU/Linux regression test with Roman's patch and it seemed to work fine. I'd be happy to see it applied FWIW. OK. Then let's go with Roman's patch.

Jeff

• References:
  • Re: [m68k 08/13] unwind support for signal handler
    * From: Jeffrey Law
  • Re: [m68k 08/13] unwind support for signal handler
    * From: Roman Zippel
  • Re: [m68k 08/13] unwind support for signal handler
    * From: Jeffrey Law
  • Re: [m68k 08/13] unwind support for signal handler
    * From: Richard Sandiford