lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2017]   [May]   [22]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 7/7] DWARF: add the config option

* Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com> wrote:

> > How are you handling control flow?
>
> Control flow of what?
>
> > > Here's the struct in its current state:
> > >
> > > #define UNDWARF_REG_UNDEFINED 0
> > > #define UNDWARF_REG_CFA 1
> > > #define UNDWARF_REG_SP 2
> > > #define UNDWARF_REG_FP 3
> > > #define UNDWARF_REG_SP_INDIRECT 4
> > > #define UNDWARF_REG_FP_INDIRECT 5
> > > #define UNDWARF_REG_R10 6
> > > #define UNDWARF_REG_DI 7
> > > #define UNDWARF_REG_DX 8
> > >
> >
> > Why only those registers? Also, if you have the option I would really
> > suggest using the actual x86 register numbers (ax, ex, dx, bx, sp, bp,
> > si, di, r8-r15 in that order.)
>
> Those are the only registers which are ever needed as the base for
> finding the previous stack frame. 99% of the time it's sp or bp, the
> other registers are needed for aligned stacks and entry code.
>
> Using the actual register numbers isn't an option because I don't need
> them all and they need to fit in a small number of bits.
>
> This construct might be useful for other arches, which is why I called
> it "FP" instead of "BP". But then I ruined that with the last 3 :-)

Please call it BP - 'FP' can easily be read as floating-point, making it all
super-confusing. We should use canonical x86 register names and ordering - even
if not all registers are used straight away.

Thanks,

Ingo

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2017-05-22 13:15    [W:1.342 / U:0.036 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site